lOMoARcPSD|61746433
Human Resource Management Past Present and Future
MGMT 7073 - Human Resource Management
University of Cincinnati
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
Abstract
What is being called human resource management (HRM) today has
had a long and checkered history. A number of key changes in the
social and economic environment have affected the evolution of
HRM, some of which we will highlight in the following sections.
Although many of the historians of HRM begin with the 19th century,
which was a period of rapid industrialization in the U.S., we start our
review much earlier with the development of tribes and, later,
apprenticeship and independent contractor systems of the late
medieval period (Dulebohn, Ferris, & Stodd, 1995; Ling, 1965). One
reason for this is that we want to highlight the changes in the
employment relationship over time. This brief historical overview is
not meant to be exhaustive; instead, it provides a context for
appreciating the strides we've made in what we now call “HRM.”In
this special issue, we focus on HRM past and present. Note that there
will be a companion to this special issue later this year that will focus
on HRM present & future.
“Early beginnings”: 1400s–1700s
Historically, HRM probably was the earliest evolved management
function, predating other functions such as finance,accounting, and
marketing. Although unrecorded, the actual managing of human
resources doubtless has occurred since the first organization of people
into functioning units such as tribes. As tribes formed and,
particularly, as they evolved from hunting and then farming, a division
of labor undoubtedly arose with recognition of differing productivity
of individuals. This development was a form of division of labor in
which different persons occupied different roles in the productive
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
society. Craftspersons who could develop tools for farmers and be
supported by the productivity of others engaged in farming doubtless
emerged, and a natural division of labor arose. In short, the
productivity of various crafts and occupations varied, and trade
evolved to takeadvantage of these variations. Whether managed
through the natural functioning of a market and a market allocation
ofproductive roles, or the human resource management of a tribal
leader, the issues of managing human resources emerged. In the late
18th century the Industrial revolution began in Europe and spread to
the U.S. This revolution completely changed the way that individuals
earned a living, and led to a shift from an agricultural to an industrial
or manufacturing society. Human skills and craftwork were replaced
with machines, and the factory system was born (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). Factories and manufacturing greatly improved production, and
altered employment relationships. For instance, these systems
replaced the self-employment independent contractor system and
created permanent wage earners who were employed by
organizations. At the same time, it resulted in the rationalization of
work and another division of labor. Workers who had been skilled
contractors became the tenders of machines and performed highly
specialized routine tasks. The new manufacturing system also created
the need to supervise large numbers of workers, and management
practices tended to be autocratic and paternalistic (Dulebohn et
al.,1995). Management expressed little concern for the safety or
welfare of workers, and workers were controlled with force and fear
(Slichter, 1919). This approach to management continued until the end
of the 19th century.
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
“Personnel”: 1800s
Around 1800, an English factory owner named Robert Owens altered
a number of aspects of the employment relationship and developed
“welfare to work”systems in order to improve both social and working
conditions for workers (Dulebohn et al., 1995).In particular, he taught
that his workers' temperance and cleanliness improved working
conditions, and refused to employ young children ( Davis, 1957). In
some cases, these practices evolved into more elaborate paternalistic
systems where workers were provided with company housing,
company stores, company schools,
apprenticeships, pensions, life and accident insurance, hospitals, and
libraries (Davis, 1957). Welfareto-work systems can be defined as
“anything for the comfort and improvement, intellectual or social, of
the employees, over and above wages paid, which is not a necessity of
the industry or required by law” (U.S. Bureau of Labor, 1919, p. 8).
These new systems were designed to promote good management and
worker relations, increase productivity, and avert worker conflict and
unionization ( Dulebohn et al., 1995). Not surprisingly, these practices
set the stage for many of the employee benefits that are used to attract,
motivate, and retain workers today. They have also become the norm
for many benefit systems in Western nations. In the era following the
civil war (1860s), labormanagement disputes began to occur.
Employers wanted to thwart unions and believed that changes in
working conditions would enhance performance (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). As a result, welfare-towork programs escalated, but these
programs were actually designed to benefit businesses not workers. As
these programs grew in scope in the late 1800s, organizations hired
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
welfare secretaries to administer them, and eventually the role of
welfare secretary evolved into the employment manager and, at a later
point in time, the “personnel manager”. The primary functions of this
role were to hire, fire, discipline, and reward employees, which meant
that line managers no longer had to focus on managing and retaining
the workforce. Many organizations began to enact paternalistic
practices, but some employers were mistreating employees, which led
crafts workers and others to join protection societies later known as
labor unions (Scarpello, 2008). As might be expected ,employers
fought the growth of unions and took a number of steps to curtail
unionization, including court injunctions or forcing applicants to sign
yellow dog contracts indicating that they would not join a union.
“Labor relations/human relations”: 1900s–1970s
With the advent of manufacturing, employers sought ways of
enhancing efficiency and productivity. Engineers (e.g., Frederick
Taylor), Industrial and Organizational Psychologists (e.g., Lillian
Gilbreath), sociologists (e.g., Max Weber), and Management scholars
(e.g., Heny Fayol) focused on strategies for enhancing organizational
efficiency, and developed new approaches to managing workers. For
instance, the Scientific Management approach fostered by Frederick
Taylor (1947) emphasized the rationalization of work by studying the
job scientifically, breaking it down into components, and determining
the one best way to perform the job. This approach diminished worker
autonomy and stressed that employees should be supervised closely to
ensure that they performed the job exactly as expected. At the same
time Max Weber (1927) suggested that organizational efficiency could
be improved by using legitimate rules and authority systems. The new
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
design of jobs and the resultant autocratic management systems
spawned even greater levels of conflict between workers and
organizations. In the 1930s the National Labor Relations Act, the
Norris-LaGuardia Act (1932), the Wagner Act (1935), and other laws
led to the growth of unions. As a result of increased unionization and
use of scientific management principles, personnel departments grew
and focused on job analysis as the basis for employee selection,
training, job evaluation, and compensation. In addition, The Wagner
Act defined the New Deal industrial relations system and “declared
that the goal of public policy was to encourage the practice of
collective bargaining, to eliminate labor's inequality of bargaining
power, and introduce democratic rights of due process to
industry”(Kaufman, 1993, p. 61). In view of these policies, industrial
relations (IR) departments emerged in organizations in order to
manage collective bargaining agreements (Dulebohn et al., 1995).
World War II created an exceptional demand for labor and slowed
temporarily the growth of unions (Dulebohn et al., 1995) .The war
brought wage freezes and prohibited strikes, but following the war
there was an increased need for HRM. The post-war era brought
renewed interest in unions, and workers were determined to recover
their lost wage increases. In addition, federal labor laws and wage
controls created an increased demand for personnel departments. In
addition, the growing power of unions and labor unrest resulted in the
passage of the Taft Hartley Act. The act was designed to equalize
power between labor and management. During the 1940s and 1950s,
unions represented 47% of the U. S. labor force, and 95% of
companies had at least one union (Dulebohn et al., 1995). At the same
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
time, employers began to hire more educated personnel managers
because of the constraints posed by unions and the need to manage
unionized workforces. In the 1930s, employment managers began to
argue that conflict was not inherent in labor relations, but was caused
by poor management and work systems. As a result, researchers
conducted a series of experiments to examine the effects of different
work systems on worker productivity (Roethlisberger & Dickson,
1939). These researchers found that the social elements and workers'
needs had an important impact on the output and workers' well-being.
This new approach was labeled the Human Relations movement, and
emphasized that workers have social needs. The Human Relations
approach broadened the view of HRM beyond the individual and the
job, and stressed the work group and social structures of organizations
(Dulebohn et al., 1995; Scarpello, 2008). In the 1950s, the Human
Relations movement in the field of HRM challenged the assumption
that people did not want to work , and it stressed that human resources
made important contributions to organizations. As a result, the term
“personnel management” was replaced with the label “human resource
management”, which emphasized that human resources were assets to
organizations. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Human Relations approach
evolved into the Quality of Work Life (QWL) era. This approach
attempted to satisfy the interests of employees and organizations by
stressing both employee well-being and productivity. For example,
management developed new programs that underscored job
enrichment and career development; in addition, new policies were
designed to improve workers' quality of work life in order to enhance
their satisfaction and commitment to organizations. During this era,
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
managers also developed programs that focused on labor-management
cooperation and promoted collaborative efforts to improve workers'
quality of work life. The QWL era was facilitated by legislation that
highlighted fair employment practices including Civil Rights Acts
(1964), Occupational Safety and Health Act (1970), and Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974). The passage of these acts,
and the development of new QWL programs, promoted the need for
professional Human Resource managers and new forms of HRM
policies and practices in organizations.
“Strategic HRM”: 1980s to present
All of these above-mentioned changes and challenges prompted the
development of a “new” HRM function (Kochan, Katz, & McKersie,
1986). This new function is much more of a strategic partner in
organizations due to the recognition that human resources are critical
to the functioning of organizations in the service and knowledge
economies. In addition, the late 20th century saw an increased reliance
on employee-relations, and HRM was called on to foster a sense of
trust in the relations between managers and workers (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). American organizations began to stress non-unionized HRM
practices and to adopt many of the Japanese management principles
that emphasized employees as critical resources that can give
organizations a competitive advantage. As a result, HRM has evolved
from a “personnel” function to a human relations, then labor relations,
then industrial relations, and most recently strategic HRM function. In
the articles that follow, this evolution of the field is further articulated
in terms of both general and specific events. To set the stage for
examining our roots, Kaufman (2014-in this issue) traces the
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
development of HRM from the labor problem that surfaced in the 19th
century to the multifaceted strategic HRM/industrial
relations/personnel economics nature of the field today. Similarly De
Nisi, Wilson and Bite man (2014in this issue) review the history of
HRM throughout the 20th century but focus on how this evolution of
the field is characterized in terms of the HR research —practice gap.
In an interesting twist, Boudreau and Lawler (2014-in this issue) trace
the evolution of the field from a perceptual rather than historical
perspective. Based on survey data from HR leaders spanning two
decades, they share their findings regarding the changing role of HRM
based on the evolution of perceptions regarding the progress of the
field of HRM. The next two articles focus on specific issues/problems
that are fundamental to the evolution of our field. Nkomo and Hoobler
(2014-in this issue) explain the shift in HRM with respect to our
societal and thus organizational ideologies regarding “diversity” .As a
nation, we've evolved from a “white supremacy” view of diversity that
characterized the early 20th century to an “inclusion” orientation that
emerged in the early 21st century. Gowan (2014-in this issue) focuses
on the history of unemployment research and how we, as a field, have
evolved from a job-loss research focus to a stress focus to, more
recently, a career growth focus. The last article is relevant to our
current reincarnation as a “strategic partner” in organizations today.
Sikora & Ferris (2014-in this issue) propose that the real issue facing
strategic HRM is HR implementation. Using social context factors,
they explain how the success of HRM is not a matter of “strategy” but
rather a focus on the line managers responsible for implementing
those HR strategies .Notably this article focuses on the current
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
challenges facing the field, which is a nice segue for the second
volume of our special issue which will focus more so on HRM in
terms of the present and future. It is our hope that these special issues
will foster additional research onthe fundamentals of HRM and lead to
a better understanding of the significance and contributions of the
field as a whole.
“Early beginnings”: 1400s–1700s
Historically, HRM probably was the earliest evolved management
function, predating other functions such as finance,accounting, and
marketing. Although unrecorded, the actual managing of human
resources doubtless has occurred since the first organization of people
into functioning units such as tribes. As tribes formed and,
particularly, as they evolved from hunting and then farming, a division
of labor undoubtedly arose with recognition of differing productivity
of individuals. This development was a form of division of labor in
which different persons occupied different roles in the productive
society. Craftspersons who could develop tools for farmers and be
supported by the productivity of others engaged in farming doubtless
emerged, and a natural division of labor arose. In short, the
productivity of various crafts and occupations varied, and trade
evolved to takeadvantage of these variations. Whether managed
through the natural functioning of a market and a market allocation
ofproductive roles, or the human resource management of a tribal
leader, the issues of managing human resources emerged. In the late
18th century the Industrial revolution began in Europe and spread to
the U.S. This revolution completely changed the way that individuals
earned a living, and led to a shift from an agricultural to an industrial
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
or manufacturing society. Human skills and craftwork were replaced
with machines, and the factory system was born (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). Factories and manufacturing greatly improved production, and
altered employment relationships. For instance, these systems
replaced the self-employment independent contractor system and
created permanent wage earners who were employed by
organizations. At the same time, it resulted in the rationalization of
work and another division of labor. Workers who had been skilled
contractors became the tenders of machines and performed highly
specialized routine tasks. The new manufacturing system also created
the need to supervise large numbers of workers, and management
practices tended to be autocratic and paternalistic (Dulebohn et
al.,1995). Management expressed little concern for the safety or
welfare of workers, and workers were controlled with force and fear
(Slichter, 1919). This approach to management continued until the end
of the 19th century.
“Personnel”: 1800s
Around 1800, an English factory owner named Robert Owens altered
a number of aspects of the employment relationship and developed
“welfare to work”systems in order to improve both social and working
conditions for workers (Dulebohn et al., 1995).In particular, he taught
that his workers' temperance and cleanliness improved working
conditions, and refused to employ young children ( Davis, 1957). In
some cases, these practices evolved into more elaborate paternalistic
systems where workers were provided with company housing,
company stores, company schools,
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
apprenticeships, pensions, life and accident insurance, hospitals, and
libraries (Davis, 1957). Welfareto-work systems can be defined as
“anything for the comfort and improvement, intellectual or social, of
the employees, over and above wages paid, which is not a necessity of
the industry or required by law” (U.S. Bureau of Labor, 1919, p. 8).
These new systems were designed to promote good management and
worker relations, increase productivity, and avert worker conflict and
unionization ( Dulebohn et al., 1995). Not surprisingly, these practices
set the stage for many of the employee benefits that are used to attract,
motivate, and retain workers today. They have also become the norm
for many benefit systems in Western nations. In the era following the
civil war (1860s), labormanagement disputes began to occur.
Employers wanted to thwart unions and believed that changes in
working conditions would enhance performance (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). As a result, welfare-towork programs escalated, but these
programs were actually designed to benefit businesses not workers. As
these programs grew in scope in the late 1800s, organizations hired
welfare secretaries to administer them, and eventually the role of
welfare secretary evolved into the employment manager and, at a later
point in time, the “personnel manager”. The primary functions of this
role were to hire, fire, discipline, and reward employees, which meant
that line managers no longer had to focus on managing and retaining
the workforce. Many organizations began to enact paternalistic
practices, but some employers were mistreating employees, which led
crafts workers and others to join protection societies later known as
labor unions (Scarpello, 2008). As might be expected ,employers
fought the growth of unions and took a number of steps to curtail
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
unionization, including court injunctions or forcing applicants to sign
yellow dog contracts indicating that they would not join a union.
“Labor relations/human relations”: 1900s–1970s
With the advent of manufacturing, employers sought ways of
enhancing efficiency and productivity. Engineers (e.g., Frederick
Taylor), Industrial and Organizational Psychologists (e.g., Lillian
Gilbreath), sociologists (e.g., Max Weber), and Management scholars
(e.g., Heny Fayol) focused on strategies for enhancing organizational
efficiency, and developed new approaches to managing workers. For
instance, the Scientific Management approach fostered by Frederick
Taylor (1947) emphasized the rationalization of work by studying the
job scientifically, breaking it down into components, and determining
the one best way to perform the job. This approach diminished worker
autonomy and stressed that employees should be supervised closely to
ensure that they performed the job exactly as expected. At the same
time Max Weber (1927) suggested that organizational efficiency could
be improved by using legitimate rules and authority systems. The new
design of jobs and the resultant autocratic management systems
spawned even greater levels of conflict between workers and
organizations. In the 1930s the National Labor Relations Act, the
Norris-LaGuardia Act (1932), the Wagner Act (1935), and other laws
led to the growth of unions. As a result of increased unionization and
use of scientific management principles, personnel departments grew
and focused on job analysis as the basis for employee selection,
training, job evaluation, and compensation. In addition, The Wagner
Act defined the New Deal industrial relations system and “declared
that the goal of public policy was to encourage the practice of
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
collective bargaining, to eliminate labor's inequality of bargaining
power, and introduce democratic rights of due process to
industry”(Kaufman, 1993, p. 61). In view of these policies, industrial
relations (IR) departments emerged in organizations in order to
manage collective bargaining agreements (Dulebohn et al., 1995).
World War II created an exceptional demand for labor and slowed
temporarily the growth of unions (Dulebohn et al., 1995) .The war
brought wage freezes and prohibited strikes, but following the war
there was an increased need for HRM. The post-war era brought
renewed interest in unions, and workers were determined to recover
their lost wage increases. In addition, federal labor laws and wage
controls created an increased demand for personnel departments. In
addition, the growing power of unions and labor unrest resulted in the
passage of the Taft Hartley Act. The act was designed to equalize
power between labor and management. During the 1940s and 1950s,
unions represented 47% of the U. S. labor force, and 95% of
companies had at least one union (Dulebohn et al., 1995). At the same
time, employers began to hire more educated personnel managers
because of the constraints posed by unions and the need to manage
unionized workforces. In the 1930s, employment managers began to
argue that conflict was not inherent in labor relations, but was caused
by poor management and work systems. As a result, researchers
conducted a series of experiments to examine the effects of different
work systems on worker productivity (Roethlisberger & Dickson,
1939). These researchers found that the social elements and workers'
needs had an important impact on the output and workers' well-being.
This new approach was labeled the Human Relations movement, and
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
emphasized that workers have social needs. The Human Relations
approach broadened the view of HRM beyond the individual and the
job, and stressed the work group and social structures of organizations
(Dulebohn et al., 1995; Scarpello, 2008). In the 1950s, the Human
Relations movement in the field of HRM challenged the assumption
that people did not want to work , and it stressed that human resources
made important contributions to organizations. As a result, the term
“personnel management” was replaced with the label “human resource
management”, which emphasized that human resources were assets to
organizations. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Human Relations approach
evolved into the Quality of Work Life (QWL) era. This approach
attempted to satisfy the interests of employees and organizations by
stressing both employee well-being and productivity. For example,
management developed new programs that underscored job
enrichment and career development; in addition, new policies were
designed to improve workers' quality of work life in order to enhance
their satisfaction and commitment to organizations. During this era,
managers also developed programs that focused on labor-management
cooperation and promoted collaborative efforts to improve workers'
quality of work life. The QWL era was facilitated by legislation that
highlighted fair employment practices including Civil Rights Acts
(1964), Occupational Safety and Health Act (1970), and Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974). The passage of these acts,
and the development of new QWL programs, promoted the need for
professional Human Resource managers and new forms of HRM
policies and practices in organizations.
“Strategic HRM”: 1980s to present
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
All of these above-mentioned changes and challenges prompted the
development of a “new” HRM function (Kochan, Katz, & McKersie,
1986). This new function is much more of a strategic partner in
organizations due to the recognition that human resources are critical
to the functioning of organizations in the service and knowledge
economies. In addition, the late 20th century saw an increased reliance
on employee-relations, and HRM was called on to foster a sense of
trust in the relations between managers and workers (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). American organizations began to stress non-unionized HRM
practices and to adopt many of the Japanese management principles
that emphasized employees as critical resources that can give
organizations a competitive advantage. As a result, HRM has evolved
from a “personnel” function to a human relations, then labor relations,
then industrial relations, and most recently strategic HRM function. In
the articles that follow, this evolution of the field is further articulated
in terms of both general and specific events. To set the stage for
examining our roots, Kaufman (2014-in this issue) traces the
development of HRM from the labor problem that surfaced in the 19th
century to the multifaceted strategic HRM/industrial
relations/personnel economics nature of the field today. Similarly De
Nisi, Wilson and Bite man (2014in this issue) review the history of
HRM throughout the 20th century but focus on how this evolution of
the field is characterized in terms of the HR research —practice gap.
In an interesting twist, Boudreau and Lawler (2014-in this issue) trace
the evolution of the field from a perceptual rather than historical
perspective. Based on survey data from HR leaders spanning two
decades, they share their findings regarding the changing role of HRM
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
based on the evolution of perceptions regarding the progress of the
field of HRM. The next two articles focus on specific issues/problems
that are fundamental to the evolution of our field. Nkomo and Hoobler
(2014-in this issue) explain the shift in HRM with respect to our
societal and thus organizational ideologies regarding “diversity” .As a
nation, we've evolved from a “white supremacy” view of diversity that
characterized the early 20th century to an “inclusion” orientation that
emerged in the early 21st century. Gowan (2014-in this issue) focuses
on the history of unemployment research and how we, as a field, have
evolved from a job-loss research focus to a stress focus to, more
recently, a career growth focus. The last article is relevant to our
current reincarnation as a “strategic partner” in organizations today.
Sikora & Ferris (2014-in this issue) propose that the real issue facing
strategic HRM is HR implementation. Using social context factors,
they explain how the success of HRM is not a matter of “strategy” but
rather a focus on the line managers responsible for implementing
those HR strategies .Notably this article focuses on the current
challenges facing the field, which is a nice segue for the second
volume of our special issue which will focus more so on HRM in
terms of the present and future. It is our hope that these special issues
will foster additional research onthe fundamentals of HRM and lead to
a better understanding of the significance and contributions of the
field as a whole.
“Early beginnings”: 1400s–1700s
Historically, HRM probably was the earliest evolved management
function, predating other functions such as finance,accounting, and
marketing. Although unrecorded, the actual managing of human
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
resources doubtless has occurred since the first organization of people
into functioning units such as tribes. As tribes formed and,
particularly, as they evolved from hunting and then farming, a division
of labor undoubtedly arose with recognition of differing productivity
of individuals. This development was a form of division of labor in
which different persons occupied different roles in the productive
society. Craftspersons who could develop tools for farmers and be
supported by the productivity of others engaged in farming doubtless
emerged, and a natural division of labor arose. In short, the
productivity of various crafts and occupations varied, and trade
evolved to takeadvantage of these variations. Whether managed
through the natural functioning of a market and a market allocation
ofproductive roles, or the human resource management of a tribal
leader, the issues of managing human resources emerged. In the late
18th century the Industrial revolution began in Europe and spread to
the U.S. This revolution completely changed the way that individuals
earned a living, and led to a shift from an agricultural to an industrial
or manufacturing society. Human skills and craftwork were replaced
with machines, and the factory system was born (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). Factories and manufacturing greatly improved production, and
altered employment relationships. For instance, these systems
replaced the self-employment independent contractor system and
created permanent wage earners who were employed by
organizations. At the same time, it resulted in the rationalization of
work and another division of labor. Workers who had been skilled
contractors became the tenders of machines and performed highly
specialized routine tasks. The new manufacturing system also created
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
the need to supervise large numbers of workers, and management
practices tended to be autocratic and paternalistic (Dulebohn et
al.,1995). Management expressed little concern for the safety or
welfare of workers, and workers were controlled with force and fear
(Slichter, 1919). This approach to management continued until the end
of the 19th century.
“Personnel”: 1800s
Around 1800, an English factory owner named Robert Owens altered
a number of aspects of the employment relationship and developed
“welfare to work”systems in order to improve both social and working
conditions for workers (Dulebohn et al., 1995).In particular, he taught
that his workers' temperance and cleanliness improved working
conditions, and refused to employ young children ( Davis, 1957). In
some cases, these practices evolved into more elaborate paternalistic
systems where workers were provided with company housing,
company stores, company schools,
apprenticeships, pensions, life and accident insurance, hospitals, and
libraries (Davis, 1957). Welfareto-work systems can be defined as
“anything for the comfort and improvement, intellectual or social, of
the employees, over and above wages paid, which is not a necessity of
the industry or required by law” (U.S. Bureau of Labor, 1919, p. 8).
These new systems were designed to promote good management and
worker relations, increase productivity, and avert worker conflict and
unionization ( Dulebohn et al., 1995). Not surprisingly, these practices
set the stage for many of the employee benefits that are used to attract,
motivate, and retain workers today. They have also become the norm
for many benefit systems in Western nations. In the era following the
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
civil war (1860s), labormanagement disputes began to occur.
Employers wanted to thwart unions and believed that changes in
working conditions would enhance performance (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). As a result, welfare-towork programs escalated, but these
programs were actually designed to benefit businesses not workers. As
these programs grew in scope in the late 1800s, organizations hired
welfare secretaries to administer them, and eventually the role of
welfare secretary evolved into the employment manager and, at a later
point in time, the “personnel manager”. The primary functions of this
role were to hire, fire, discipline, and reward employees, which meant
that line managers no longer had to focus on managing and retaining
the workforce. Many organizations began to enact paternalistic
practices, but some employers were mistreating employees, which led
crafts workers and others to join protection societies later known as
labor unions (Scarpello, 2008). As might be expected ,employers
fought the growth of unions and took a number of steps to curtail
unionization, including court injunctions or forcing applicants to sign
yellow dog contracts indicating that they would not join a union.
“Labor relations/human relations”: 1900s–1970s
With the advent of manufacturing, employers sought ways of
enhancing efficiency and productivity. Engineers (e.g., Frederick
Taylor), Industrial and Organizational Psychologists (e.g., Lillian
Gilbreath), sociologists (e.g., Max Weber), and Management scholars
(e.g., Heny Fayol) focused on strategies for enhancing organizational
efficiency, and developed new approaches to managing workers. For
instance, the Scientific Management approach fostered by Frederick
Taylor (1947) emphasized the rationalization of work by studying the
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
job scientifically, breaking it down into components, and determining
the one best way to perform the job. This approach diminished worker
autonomy and stressed that employees should be supervised closely to
ensure that they performed the job exactly as expected. At the same
time Max Weber (1927) suggested that organizational efficiency could
be improved by using legitimate rules and authority systems. The new
design of jobs and the resultant autocratic management systems
spawned even greater levels of conflict between workers and
organizations. In the 1930s the National Labor Relations Act, the
Norris-LaGuardia Act (1932), the Wagner Act (1935), and other laws
led to the growth of unions. As a result of increased unionization and
use of scientific management principles, personnel departments grew
and focused on job analysis as the basis for employee selection,
training, job evaluation, and compensation. In addition, The Wagner
Act defined the New Deal industrial relations system and “declared
that the goal of public policy was to encourage the practice of
collective bargaining, to eliminate labor's inequality of bargaining
power, and introduce democratic rights of due process to
industry”(Kaufman, 1993, p. 61). In view of these policies, industrial
relations (IR) departments emerged in organizations in order to
manage collective bargaining agreements (Dulebohn et al., 1995).
World War II created an exceptional demand for labor and slowed
temporarily the growth of unions (Dulebohn et al., 1995) .The war
brought wage freezes and prohibited strikes, but following the war
there was an increased need for HRM. The post-war era brought
renewed interest in unions, and workers were determined to recover
their lost wage increases. In addition, federal labor laws and wage
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
controls created an increased demand for personnel departments. In
addition, the growing power of unions and labor unrest resulted in the
passage of the Taft Hartley Act. The act was designed to equalize
power between labor and management. During the 1940s and 1950s,
unions represented 47% of the U. S. labor force, and 95% of
companies had at least one union (Dulebohn et al., 1995). At the same
time, employers began to hire more educated personnel managers
because of the constraints posed by unions and the need to manage
unionized workforces. In the 1930s, employment managers began to
argue that conflict was not inherent in labor relations, but was caused
by poor management and work systems. As a result, researchers
conducted a series of experiments to examine the effects of different
work systems on worker productivity (Roethlisberger & Dickson,
1939). These researchers found that the social elements and workers'
needs had an important impact on the output and workers' well-being.
This new approach was labeled the Human Relations movement, and
emphasized that workers have social needs. The Human Relations
approach broadened the view of HRM beyond the individual and the
job, and stressed the work group and social structures of organizations
(Dulebohn et al., 1995; Scarpello, 2008). In the 1950s, the Human
Relations movement in the field of HRM challenged the assumption
that people did not want to work , and it stressed that human resources
made important contributions to organizations. As a result, the term
“personnel management” was replaced with the label “human resource
management”, which emphasized that human resources were assets to
organizations. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Human Relations approach
evolved into the Quality of Work Life (QWL) era. This approach
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
attempted to satisfy the interests of employees and organizations by
stressing both employee well-being and productivity. For example,
management developed new programs that underscored job
enrichment and career development; in addition, new policies were
designed to improve workers' quality of work life in order to enhance
their satisfaction and commitment to organizations. During this era,
managers also developed programs that focused on labor-management
cooperation and promoted collaborative efforts to improve workers'
quality of work life. The QWL era was facilitated by legislation that
highlighted fair employment practices including Civil Rights Acts
(1964), Occupational Safety and Health Act (1970), and Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974). The passage of these acts,
and the development of new QWL programs, promoted the need for
professional Human Resource managers and new forms of HRM
policies and practices in organizations.
“Strategic HRM”: 1980s to present
All of these above-mentioned changes and challenges prompted the
development of a “new” HRM function (Kochan, Katz, & McKersie,
1986). This new function is much more of a strategic partner in
organizations due to the recognition that human resources are critical
to the functioning of organizations in the service and knowledge
economies. In addition, the late 20th century saw an increased reliance
on employee-relations, and HRM was called on to foster a sense of
trust in the relations between managers and workers (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). American organizations began to stress non-unionized HRM
practices and to adopt many of the Japanese management principles
that emphasized employees as critical resources that can give
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
organizations a competitive advantage. As a result, HRM has evolved
from a “personnel” function to a human relations, then labor relations,
then industrial relations, and most recently strategic HRM function. In
the articles that follow, this evolution of the field is further articulated
in terms of both general and specific events. To set the stage for
examining our roots, Kaufman (2014-in this issue) traces the
development of HRM from the labor problem that surfaced in the 19th
century to the multifaceted strategic HRM/industrial
relations/personnel economics nature of the field today. Similarly De
Nisi, Wilson and Bite man (2014in this issue) review the history of
HRM throughout the 20th century but focus on how this evolution of
the field is characterized in terms of the HR research —practice gap.
In an interesting twist, Boudreau and Lawler (2014-in this issue) trace
the evolution of the field from a perceptual rather than historical
perspective. Based on survey data from HR leaders spanning two
decades, they share their findings regarding the changing role of HRM
based on the evolution of perceptions regarding the progress of the
field of HRM. The next two articles focus on specific issues/problems
that are fundamental to the evolution of our field. Nkomo and Hoobler
(2014-in this issue) explain the shift in HRM with respect to our
societal and thus organizational ideologies regarding “diversity” .As a
nation, we've evolved from a “white supremacy” view of diversity that
characterized the early 20th century to an “inclusion” orientation that
emerged in the early 21st century. Gowan (2014-in this issue) focuses
on the history of unemployment research and how we, as a field, have
evolved from a job-loss research focus to a stress focus to, more
recently, a career growth focus. The last article is relevant to our
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
current reincarnation as a “strategic partner” in organizations today.
Sikora & Ferris (2014-in this issue) propose that the real issue facing
strategic HRM is HR implementation. Using social context factors,
they explain how the success of HRM is not a matter of “strategy” but
rather a focus on the line managers responsible for implementing
those HR strategies .Notably this article focuses on the current
challenges facing the field, which is a nice segue for the second
volume of our special issue which will focus more so on HRM in
terms of the present and future. It is our hope that these special issues
will foster additional research onthe fundamentals of HRM and lead to
a better understanding of the significance and contributions of the
field as a whole.
“Early beginnings”: 1400s–1700s
Historically, HRM probably was the earliest evolved management
function, predating other functions such as finance,accounting, and
marketing. Although unrecorded, the actual managing of human
resources doubtless has occurred since the first organization of people
into functioning units such as tribes. As tribes formed and,
particularly, as they evolved from hunting and then farming, a division
of labor undoubtedly arose with recognition of differing productivity
of individuals. This development was a form of division of labor in
which different persons occupied different roles in the productive
society. Craftspersons who could develop tools for farmers and be
supported by the productivity of others engaged in farming doubtless
emerged, and a natural division of labor arose. In short, the
productivity of various crafts and occupations varied, and trade
evolved to takeadvantage of these variations. Whether managed
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
through the natural functioning of a market and a market allocation
ofproductive roles, or the human resource management of a tribal
leader, the issues of managing human resources emerged. In the late
18th century the Industrial revolution began in Europe and spread to
the U.S. This revolution completely changed the way that individuals
earned a living, and led to a shift from an agricultural to an industrial
or manufacturing society. Human skills and craftwork were replaced
with machines, and the factory system was born (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). Factories and manufacturing greatly improved production, and
altered employment relationships. For instance, these systems
replaced the self-employment independent contractor system and
created permanent wage earners who were employed by
organizations. At the same time, it resulted in the rationalization of
work and another division of labor. Workers who had been skilled
contractors became the tenders of machines and performed highly
specialized routine tasks. The new manufacturing system also created
the need to supervise large numbers of workers, and management
practices tended to be autocratic and paternalistic (Dulebohn et
al.,1995). Management expressed little concern for the safety or
welfare of workers, and workers were controlled with force and fear
(Slichter, 1919). This approach to management continued until the end
of the 19th century.
“Personnel”: 1800s
Around 1800, an English factory owner named Robert Owens altered
a number of aspects of the employment relationship and developed
“welfare to work”systems in order to improve both social and working
conditions for workers (Dulebohn et al., 1995).In particular, he taught
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
that his workers' temperance and cleanliness improved working
conditions, and refused to employ young children ( Davis, 1957). In
some cases, these practices evolved into more elaborate paternalistic
systems where workers were provided with company housing,
company stores, company schools,
apprenticeships, pensions, life and accident insurance, hospitals, and
libraries (Davis, 1957). Welfareto-work systems can be defined as
“anything for the comfort and improvement, intellectual or social, of
the employees, over and above wages paid, which is not a necessity of
the industry or required by law” (U.S. Bureau of Labor, 1919, p. 8).
These new systems were designed to promote good management and
worker relations, increase productivity, and avert worker conflict and
unionization ( Dulebohn et al., 1995). Not surprisingly, these practices
set the stage for many of the employee benefits that are used to attract,
motivate, and retain workers today. They have also become the norm
for many benefit systems in Western nations. In the era following the
civil war (1860s), labormanagement disputes began to occur.
Employers wanted to thwart unions and believed that changes in
working conditions would enhance performance (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). As a result, welfare-towork programs escalated, but these
programs were actually designed to benefit businesses not workers. As
these programs grew in scope in the late 1800s, organizations hired
welfare secretaries to administer them, and eventually the role of
welfare secretary evolved into the employment manager and, at a later
point in time, the “personnel manager”. The primary functions of this
role were to hire, fire, discipline, and reward employees, which meant
that line managers no longer had to focus on managing and retaining
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
the workforce. Many organizations began to enact paternalistic
practices, but some employers were mistreating employees, which led
crafts workers and others to join protection societies later known as
labor unions (Scarpello, 2008). As might be expected ,employers
fought the growth of unions and took a number of steps to curtail
unionization, including court injunctions or forcing applicants to sign
yellow dog contracts indicating that they would not join a union.
“Labor relations/human relations”: 1900s–1970s
With the advent of manufacturing, employers sought ways of
enhancing efficiency and productivity. Engineers (e.g., Frederick
Taylor), Industrial and Organizational Psychologists (e.g., Lillian
Gilbreath), sociologists (e.g., Max Weber), and Management scholars
(e.g., Heny Fayol) focused on strategies for enhancing organizational
efficiency, and developed new approaches to managing workers. For
instance, the Scientific Management approach fostered by Frederick
Taylor (1947) emphasized the rationalization of work by studying the
job scientifically, breaking it down into components, and determining
the one best way to perform the job. This approach diminished worker
autonomy and stressed that employees should be supervised closely to
ensure that they performed the job exactly as expected. At the same
time Max Weber (1927) suggested that organizational efficiency could
be improved by using legitimate rules and authority systems. The new
design of jobs and the resultant autocratic management systems
spawned even greater levels of conflict between workers and
organizations. In the 1930s the National Labor Relations Act, the
Norris-LaGuardia Act (1932), the Wagner Act (1935), and other laws
led to the growth of unions. As a result of increased unionization and
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
use of scientific management principles, personnel departments grew
and focused on job analysis as the basis for employee selection,
training, job evaluation, and compensation. In addition, The Wagner
Act defined the New Deal industrial relations system and “declared
that the goal of public policy was to encourage the practice of
collective bargaining, to eliminate labor's inequality of bargaining
power, and introduce democratic rights of due process to
industry”(Kaufman, 1993, p. 61). In view of these policies, industrial
relations (IR) departments emerged in organizations in order to
manage collective bargaining agreements (Dulebohn et al., 1995).
World War II created an exceptional demand for labor and slowed
temporarily the growth of unions (Dulebohn et al., 1995) .The war
brought wage freezes and prohibited strikes, but following the war
there was an increased need for HRM. The post-war era brought
renewed interest in unions, and workers were determined to recover
their lost wage increases. In addition, federal labor laws and wage
controls created an increased demand for personnel departments. In
addition, the growing power of unions and labor unrest resulted in the
passage of the Taft Hartley Act. The act was designed to equalize
power between labor and management. During the 1940s and 1950s,
unions represented 47% of the U. S. labor force, and 95% of
companies had at least one union (Dulebohn et al., 1995). At the same
time, employers began to hire more educated personnel managers
because of the constraints posed by unions and the need to manage
unionized workforces. In the 1930s, employment managers began to
argue that conflict was not inherent in labor relations, but was caused
by poor management and work systems. As a result, researchers
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
conducted a series of experiments to examine the effects of different
work systems on worker productivity (Roethlisberger & Dickson,
1939). These researchers found that the social elements and workers'
needs had an important impact on the output and workers' well-being.
This new approach was labeled the Human Relations movement, and
emphasized that workers have social needs. The Human Relations
approach broadened the view of HRM beyond the individual and the
job, and stressed the work group and social structures of organizations
(Dulebohn et al., 1995; Scarpello, 2008). In the 1950s, the Human
Relations movement in the field of HRM challenged the assumption
that people did not want to work , and it stressed that human resources
made important contributions to organizations. As a result, the term
“personnel management” was replaced with the label “human resource
management”, which emphasized that human resources were assets to
organizations. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Human Relations approach
evolved into the Quality of Work Life (QWL) era. This approach
attempted to satisfy the interests of employees and organizations by
stressing both employee well-being and productivity. For example,
management developed new programs that underscored job
enrichment and career development; in addition, new policies were
designed to improve workers' quality of work life in order to enhance
their satisfaction and commitment to organizations. During this era,
managers also developed programs that focused on labor-management
cooperation and promoted collaborative efforts to improve workers'
quality of work life. The QWL era was facilitated by legislation that
highlighted fair employment practices including Civil Rights Acts
(1964), Occupational Safety and Health Act (1970), and Employee
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974). The passage of these acts,
and the development of new QWL programs, promoted the need for
professional Human Resource managers and new forms of HRM
policies and practices in organizations.
“Strategic HRM”: 1980s to present
All of these above-mentioned changes and challenges prompted the
development of a “new” HRM function (Kochan, Katz, & McKersie,
1986). This new function is much more of a strategic partner in
organizations due to the recognition that human resources are critical
to the functioning of organizations in the service and knowledge
economies. In addition, the late 20th century saw an increased reliance
on employee-relations, and HRM was called on to foster a sense of
trust in the relations between managers and workers (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). American organizations began to stress non-unionized HRM
practices and to adopt many of the Japanese management principles
that emphasized employees as critical resources that can give
organizations a competitive advantage. As a result, HRM has evolved
from a “personnel” function to a human relations, then labor relations,
then industrial relations, and most recently strategic HRM function. In
the articles that follow, this evolution of the field is further articulated
in terms of both general and specific events. To set the stage for
examining our roots, Kaufman (2014-in this issue) traces the
development of HRM from the labor problem that surfaced in the 19th
century to the multifaceted strategic HRM/industrial
relations/personnel economics nature of the field today. Similarly De
Nisi, Wilson and Bite man (2014in this issue) review the history of
HRM throughout the 20th century but focus on how this evolution of
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
the field is characterized in terms of the HR research —practice gap.
In an interesting twist, Boudreau and Lawler (2014-in this issue) trace
the evolution of the field from a perceptual rather than historical
perspective. Based on survey data from HR leaders spanning two
decades, they share their findings regarding the changing role of HRM
based on the evolution of perceptions regarding the progress of the
field of HRM. The next two articles focus on specific issues/problems
that are fundamental to the evolution of our field. Nkomo and Hoobler
(2014-in this issue) explain the shift in HRM with respect to our
societal and thus organizational ideologies regarding “diversity” .As a
nation, we've evolved from a “white supremacy” view of diversity that
characterized the early 20th century to an “inclusion” orientation that
emerged in the early 21st century. Gowan (2014-in this issue) focuses
on the history of unemployment research and how we, as a field, have
evolved from a job-loss research focus to a stress focus to, more
recently, a career growth focus. The last article is relevant to our
current reincarnation as a “strategic partner” in organizations today.
Sikora & Ferris (2014-in this issue) propose that the real issue facing
strategic HRM is HR implementation. Using social context factors,
they explain how the success of HRM is not a matter of “strategy” but
rather a focus on the line managers responsible for implementing
those HR strategies .Notably this article focuses on the current
challenges facing the field, which is a nice segue for the second
volume of our special issue which will focus more so on HRM in
terms of the present and future. It is our hope that these special issues
will foster additional research onthe fundamentals of HRM and lead to
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
a better understanding of the significance and contributions of the
field as a whole.
“Early beginnings”: 1400s–1700s
Historically, HRM probably was the earliest evolved management
function, predating other functions such as finance,accounting, and
marketing. Although unrecorded, the actual managing of human
resources doubtless has occurred since the first organization of people
into functioning units such as tribes. As tribes formed and,
particularly, as they evolved from hunting and then farming, a division
of labor undoubtedly arose with recognition of differing productivity
of individuals. This development was a form of division of labor in
which different persons occupied different roles in the productive
society. Craftspersons who could develop tools for farmers and be
supported by the productivity of others engaged in farming doubtless
emerged, and a natural division of labor arose. In short, the
productivity of various crafts and occupations varied, and trade
evolved to takeadvantage of these variations. Whether managed
through the natural functioning of a market and a market allocation
ofproductive roles, or the human resource management of a tribal
leader, the issues of managing human resources emerged. In the late
18th century the Industrial revolution began in Europe and spread to
the U.S. This revolution completely changed the way that individuals
earned a living, and led to a shift from an agricultural to an industrial
or manufacturing society. Human skills and craftwork were replaced
with machines, and the factory system was born (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). Factories and manufacturing greatly improved production, and
altered employment relationships. For instance, these systems
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
replaced the self-employment independent contractor system and
created permanent wage earners who were employed by
organizations. At the same time, it resulted in the rationalization of
work and another division of labor. Workers who had been skilled
contractors became the tenders of machines and performed highly
specialized routine tasks. The new manufacturing system also created
the need to supervise large numbers of workers, and management
practices tended to be autocratic and paternalistic (Dulebohn et
al.,1995). Management expressed little concern for the safety or
welfare of workers, and workers were controlled with force and fear
(Slichter, 1919). This approach to management continued until the end
of the 19th century.
“Personnel”: 1800s
Around 1800, an English factory owner named Robert Owens altered
a number of aspects of the employment relationship and developed
“welfare to work”systems in order to improve both social and working
conditions for workers (Dulebohn et al., 1995).In particular, he taught
that his workers' temperance and cleanliness improved working
conditions, and refused to employ young children ( Davis, 1957). In
some cases, these practices evolved into more elaborate paternalistic
systems where workers were provided with company housing,
company stores, company schools,
apprenticeships, pensions, life and accident insurance, hospitals, and
libraries (Davis, 1957). Welfareto-work systems can be defined as
“anything for the comfort and improvement, intellectual or social, of
the employees, over and above wages paid, which is not a necessity of
the industry or required by law” (U.S. Bureau of Labor, 1919, p. 8).
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
These new systems were designed to promote good management and
worker relations, increase productivity, and avert worker conflict and
unionization ( Dulebohn et al., 1995). Not surprisingly, these practices
set the stage for many of the employee benefits that are used to attract,
motivate, and retain workers today. They have also become the norm
for many benefit systems in Western nations. In the era following the
civil war (1860s), labormanagement disputes began to occur.
Employers wanted to thwart unions and believed that changes in
working conditions would enhance performance (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). As a result, welfare-towork programs escalated, but these
programs were actually designed to benefit businesses not workers. As
these programs grew in scope in the late 1800s, organizations hired
welfare secretaries to administer them, and eventually the role of
welfare secretary evolved into the employment manager and, at a later
point in time, the “personnel manager”. The primary functions of this
role were to hire, fire, discipline, and reward employees, which meant
that line managers no longer had to focus on managing and retaining
the workforce. Many organizations began to enact paternalistic
practices, but some employers were mistreating employees, which led
crafts workers and others to join protection societies later known as
labor unions (Scarpello, 2008). As might be expected ,employers
fought the growth of unions and took a number of steps to curtail
unionization, including court injunctions or forcing applicants to sign
yellow dog contracts indicating that they would not join a union.
“Labor relations/human relations”: 1900s–1970s
With the advent of manufacturing, employers sought ways of
enhancing efficiency and productivity. Engineers (e.g., Frederick
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
Taylor), Industrial and Organizational Psychologists (e.g., Lillian
Gilbreath), sociologists (e.g., Max Weber), and Management scholars
(e.g., Heny Fayol) focused on strategies for enhancing organizational
efficiency, and developed new approaches to managing workers. For
instance, the Scientific Management approach fostered by Frederick
Taylor (1947) emphasized the rationalization of work by studying the
job scientifically, breaking it down into components, and determining
the one best way to perform the job. This approach diminished worker
autonomy and stressed that employees should be supervised closely to
ensure that they performed the job exactly as expected. At the same
time Max Weber (1927) suggested that organizational efficiency could
be improved by using legitimate rules and authority systems. The new
design of jobs and the resultant autocratic management systems
spawned even greater levels of conflict between workers and
organizations. In the 1930s the National Labor Relations Act, the
Norris-LaGuardia Act (1932), the Wagner Act (1935), and other laws
led to the growth of unions. As a result of increased unionization and
use of scientific management principles, personnel departments grew
and focused on job analysis as the basis for employee selection,
training, job evaluation, and compensation. In addition, The Wagner
Act defined the New Deal industrial relations system and “declared
that the goal of public policy was to encourage the practice of
collective bargaining, to eliminate labor's inequality of bargaining
power, and introduce democratic rights of due process to
industry”(Kaufman, 1993, p. 61). In view of these policies, industrial
relations (IR) departments emerged in organizations in order to
manage collective bargaining agreements (Dulebohn et al., 1995).
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
World War II created an exceptional demand for labor and slowed
temporarily the growth of unions (Dulebohn et al., 1995) .The war
brought wage freezes and prohibited strikes, but following the war
there was an increased need for HRM. The post-war era brought
renewed interest in unions, and workers were determined to recover
their lost wage increases. In addition, federal labor laws and wage
controls created an increased demand for personnel departments. In
addition, the growing power of unions and labor unrest resulted in the
passage of the Taft Hartley Act. The act was designed to equalize
power between labor and management. During the 1940s and 1950s,
unions represented 47% of the U. S. labor force, and 95% of
companies had at least one union (Dulebohn et al., 1995). At the same
time, employers began to hire more educated personnel managers
because of the constraints posed by unions and the need to manage
unionized workforces. In the 1930s, employment managers began to
argue that conflict was not inherent in labor relations, but was caused
by poor management and work systems. As a result, researchers
conducted a series of experiments to examine the effects of different
work systems on worker productivity (Roethlisberger & Dickson,
1939). These researchers found that the social elements and workers'
needs had an important impact on the output and workers' well-being.
This new approach was labeled the Human Relations movement, and
emphasized that workers have social needs. The Human Relations
approach broadened the view of HRM beyond the individual and the
job, and stressed the work group and social structures of organizations
(Dulebohn et al., 1995; Scarpello, 2008). In the 1950s, the Human
Relations movement in the field of HRM challenged the assumption
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
that people did not want to work , and it stressed that human resources
made important contributions to organizations. As a result, the term
“personnel management” was replaced with the label “human resource
management”, which emphasized that human resources were assets to
organizations. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Human Relations approach
evolved into the Quality of Work Life (QWL) era. This approach
attempted to satisfy the interests of employees and organizations by
stressing both employee well-being and productivity. For example,
management developed new programs that underscored job
enrichment and career development; in addition, new policies were
designed to improve workers' quality of work life in order to enhance
their satisfaction and commitment to organizations. During this era,
managers also developed programs that focused on labor-management
cooperation and promoted collaborative efforts to improve workers'
quality of work life. The QWL era was facilitated by legislation that
highlighted fair employment practices including Civil Rights Acts
(1964), Occupational Safety and Health Act (1970), and Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974). The passage of these acts,
and the development of new QWL programs, promoted the need for
professional Human Resource managers and new forms of HRM
policies and practices in organizations.
“Strategic HRM”: 1980s to present
All of these above-mentioned changes and challenges prompted the
development of a “new” HRM function (Kochan, Katz, & McKersie,
1986). This new function is much more of a strategic partner in
organizations due to the recognition that human resources are critical
to the functioning of organizations in the service and knowledge
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
economies. In addition, the late 20th century saw an increased reliance
on employee-relations, and HRM was called on to foster a sense of
trust in the relations between managers and workers (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). American organizations began to stress non-unionized HRM
practices and to adopt many of the Japanese management principles
that emphasized employees as critical resources that can give
organizations a competitive advantage. As a result, HRM has evolved
from a “personnel” function to a human relations, then labor relations,
then industrial relations, and most recently strategic HRM function. In
the articles that follow, this evolution of the field is further articulated
in terms of both general and specific events. To set the stage for
examining our roots, Kaufman (2014-in this issue) traces the
development of HRM from the labor problem that surfaced in the 19th
century to the multifaceted strategic HRM/industrial
relations/personnel economics nature of the field today. Similarly De
Nisi, Wilson and Bite man (2014in this issue) review the history of
HRM throughout the 20th century but focus on how this evolution of
the field is characterized in terms of the HR research —practice gap.
In an interesting twist, Boudreau and Lawler (2014-in this issue) trace
the evolution of the field from a perceptual rather than historical
perspective. Based on survey data from HR leaders spanning two
decades, they share their findings regarding the changing role of HRM
based on the evolution of perceptions regarding the progress of the
field of HRM. The next two articles focus on specific issues/problems
that are fundamental to the evolution of our field. Nkomo and Hoobler
(2014-in this issue) explain the shift in HRM with respect to our
societal and thus organizational ideologies regarding “diversity” .As a
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
nation, we've evolved from a “white supremacy” view of diversity that
characterized the early 20th century to an “inclusion” orientation that
emerged in the early 21st century. Gowan (2014-in this issue) focuses
on the history of unemployment research and how we, as a field, have
evolved from a job-loss research focus to a stress focus to, more
recently, a career growth focus. The last article is relevant to our
current reincarnation as a “strategic partner” in organizations today.
Sikora & Ferris (2014-in this issue) propose that the real issue facing
strategic HRM is HR implementation. Using social context factors,
they explain how the success of HRM is not a matter of “strategy” but
rather a focus on the line managers responsible for implementing
those HR strategies .Notably this article focuses on the current
challenges facing the field, which is a nice segue for the second
volume of our special issue which will focus more so on HRM in
terms of the present and future. It is our hope that these special issues
will foster additional research onthe fundamentals of HRM and lead to
a better understanding of the significance and contributions of the
field as a whole.
“Early beginnings”: 1400s–1700s
Historically, HRM probably was the earliest evolved management
function, predating other functions such as finance,accounting, and
marketing. Although unrecorded, the actual managing of human
resources doubtless has occurred since the first organization of people
into functioning units such as tribes. As tribes formed and,
particularly, as they evolved from hunting and then farming, a division
of labor undoubtedly arose with recognition of differing productivity
of individuals. This development was a form of division of labor in
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
which different persons occupied different roles in the productive
society. Craftspersons who could develop tools for farmers and be
supported by the productivity of others engaged in farming doubtless
emerged, and a natural division of labor arose. In short, the
productivity of various crafts and occupations varied, and trade
evolved to takeadvantage of these variations. Whether managed
through the natural functioning of a market and a market allocation
ofproductive roles, or the human resource management of a tribal
leader, the issues of managing human resources emerged. In the late
18th century the Industrial revolution began in Europe and spread to
the U.S. This revolution completely changed the way that individuals
earned a living, and led to a shift from an agricultural to an industrial
or manufacturing society. Human skills and craftwork were replaced
with machines, and the factory system was born (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). Factories and manufacturing greatly improved production, and
altered employment relationships. For instance, these systems
replaced the self-employment independent contractor system and
created permanent wage earners who were employed by
organizations. At the same time, it resulted in the rationalization of
work and another division of labor. Workers who had been skilled
contractors became the tenders of machines and performed highly
specialized routine tasks. The new manufacturing system also created
the need to supervise large numbers of workers, and management
practices tended to be autocratic and paternalistic (Dulebohn et
al.,1995). Management expressed little concern for the safety or
welfare of workers, and workers were controlled with force and fear
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
(Slichter, 1919). This approach to management continued until the end
of the 19th century.
“Personnel”: 1800s
Around 1800, an English factory owner named Robert Owens altered
a number of aspects of the employment relationship and developed
“welfare to work”systems in order to improve both social and working
conditions for workers (Dulebohn et al., 1995).In particular, he taught
that his workers' temperance and cleanliness improved working
conditions, and refused to employ young children ( Davis, 1957). In
some cases, these practices evolved into more elaborate paternalistic
systems where workers were provided with company housing,
company stores, company schools,
apprenticeships, pensions, life and accident insurance, hospitals, and
libraries (Davis, 1957). Welfareto-work systems can be defined as
“anything for the comfort and improvement, intellectual or social, of
the employees, over and above wages paid, which is not a necessity of
the industry or required by law” (U.S. Bureau of Labor, 1919, p. 8).
These new systems were designed to promote good management and
worker relations, increase productivity, and avert worker conflict and
unionization ( Dulebohn et al., 1995). Not surprisingly, these practices
set the stage for many of the employee benefits that are used to attract,
motivate, and retain workers today. They have also become the norm
for many benefit systems in Western nations. In the era following the
civil war (1860s), labormanagement disputes began to occur.
Employers wanted to thwart unions and believed that changes in
working conditions would enhance performance (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). As a result, welfare-towork programs escalated, but these
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
programs were actually designed to benefit businesses not workers. As
these programs grew in scope in the late 1800s, organizations hired
welfare secretaries to administer them, and eventually the role of
welfare secretary evolved into the employment manager and, at a later
point in time, the “personnel manager”. The primary functions of this
role were to hire, fire, discipline, and reward employees, which meant
that line managers no longer had to focus on managing and retaining
the workforce. Many organizations began to enact paternalistic
practices, but some employers were mistreating employees, which led
crafts workers and others to join protection societies later known as
labor unions (Scarpello, 2008). As might be expected ,employers
fought the growth of unions and took a number of steps to curtail
unionization, including court injunctions or forcing applicants to sign
yellow dog contracts indicating that they would not join a union.
“Labor relations/human relations”: 1900s–1970s
With the advent of manufacturing, employers sought ways of
enhancing efficiency and productivity. Engineers (e.g., Frederick
Taylor), Industrial and Organizational Psychologists (e.g., Lillian
Gilbreath), sociologists (e.g., Max Weber), and Management scholars
(e.g., Heny Fayol) focused on strategies for enhancing organizational
efficiency, and developed new approaches to managing workers. For
instance, the Scientific Management approach fostered by Frederick
Taylor (1947) emphasized the rationalization of work by studying the
job scientifically, breaking it down into components, and determining
the one best way to perform the job. This approach diminished worker
autonomy and stressed that employees should be supervised closely to
ensure that they performed the job exactly as expected. At the same
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
time Max Weber (1927) suggested that organizational efficiency could
be improved by using legitimate rules and authority systems. The new
design of jobs and the resultant autocratic management systems
spawned even greater levels of conflict between workers and
organizations. In the 1930s the National Labor Relations Act, the
Norris-LaGuardia Act (1932), the Wagner Act (1935), and other laws
led to the growth of unions. As a result of increased unionization and
use of scientific management principles, personnel departments grew
and focused on job analysis as the basis for employee selection,
training, job evaluation, and compensation. In addition, The Wagner
Act defined the New Deal industrial relations system and “declared
that the goal of public policy was to encourage the practice of
collective bargaining, to eliminate labor's inequality of bargaining
power, and introduce democratic rights of due process to
industry”(Kaufman, 1993, p. 61). In view of these policies, industrial
relations (IR) departments emerged in organizations in order to
manage collective bargaining agreements (Dulebohn et al., 1995).
World War II created an exceptional demand for labor and slowed
temporarily the growth of unions (Dulebohn et al., 1995) .The war
brought wage freezes and prohibited strikes, but following the war
there was an increased need for HRM. The post-war era brought
renewed interest in unions, and workers were determined to recover
their lost wage increases. In addition, federal labor laws and wage
controls created an increased demand for personnel departments. In
addition, the growing power of unions and labor unrest resulted in the
passage of the Taft Hartley Act. The act was designed to equalize
power between labor and management. During the 1940s and 1950s,
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
unions represented 47% of the U. S. labor force, and 95% of
companies had at least one union (Dulebohn et al., 1995). At the same
time, employers began to hire more educated personnel managers
because of the constraints posed by unions and the need to manage
unionized workforces. In the 1930s, employment managers began to
argue that conflict was not inherent in labor relations, but was caused
by poor management and work systems. As a result, researchers
conducted a series of experiments to examine the effects of different
work systems on worker productivity (Roethlisberger & Dickson,
1939). These researchers found that the social elements and workers'
needs had an important impact on the output and workers' well-being.
This new approach was labeled the Human Relations movement, and
emphasized that workers have social needs. The Human Relations
approach broadened the view of HRM beyond the individual and the
job, and stressed the work group and social structures of organizations
(Dulebohn et al., 1995; Scarpello, 2008). In the 1950s, the Human
Relations movement in the field of HRM challenged the assumption
that people did not want to work , and it stressed that human resources
made important contributions to organizations. As a result, the term
“personnel management” was replaced with the label “human resource
management”, which emphasized that human resources were assets to
organizations. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Human Relations approach
evolved into the Quality of Work Life (QWL) era. This approach
attempted to satisfy the interests of employees and organizations by
stressing both employee well-being and productivity. For example,
management developed new programs that underscored job
enrichment and career development; in addition, new policies were
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
designed to improve workers' quality of work life in order to enhance
their satisfaction and commitment to organizations. During this era,
managers also developed programs that focused on labor-management
cooperation and promoted collaborative efforts to improve workers'
quality of work life. The QWL era was facilitated by legislation that
highlighted fair employment practices including Civil Rights Acts
(1964), Occupational Safety and Health Act (1970), and Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974). The passage of these acts,
and the development of new QWL programs, promoted the need for
professional Human Resource managers and new forms of HRM
policies and practices in organizations.
“Strategic HRM”: 1980s to present
All of these above-mentioned changes and challenges prompted the
development of a “new” HRM function (Kochan, Katz, & McKersie,
1986). This new function is much more of a strategic partner in
organizations due to the recognition that human resources are critical
to the functioning of organizations in the service and knowledge
economies. In addition, the late 20th century saw an increased reliance
on employee-relations, and HRM was called on to foster a sense of
trust in the relations between managers and workers (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). American organizations began to stress non-unionized HRM
practices and to adopt many of the Japanese management principles
that emphasized employees as critical resources that can give
organizations a competitive advantage. As a result, HRM has evolved
from a “personnel” function to a human relations, then labor relations,
then industrial relations, and most recently strategic HRM function. In
the articles that follow, this evolution of the field is further articulated
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
in terms of both general and specific events. To set the stage for
examining our roots, Kaufman (2014-in this issue) traces the
development of HRM from the labor problem that surfaced in the 19th
century to the multifaceted strategic HRM/industrial
relations/personnel economics nature of the field today. Similarly De
Nisi, Wilson and Bite man (2014in this issue) review the history of
HRM throughout the 20th century but focus on how this evolution of
the field is characterized in terms of the HR research —practice gap.
In an interesting twist, Boudreau and Lawler (2014-in this issue) trace
the evolution of the field from a perceptual rather than historical
perspective. Based on survey data from HR leaders spanning two
decades, they share their findings regarding the changing role of HRM
based on the evolution of perceptions regarding the progress of the
field of HRM. The next two articles focus on specific issues/problems
that are fundamental to the evolution of our field. Nkomo and Hoobler
(2014-in this issue) explain the shift in HRM with respect to our
societal and thus organizational ideologies regarding “diversity” .As a
nation, we've evolved from a “white supremacy” view of diversity that
characterized the early 20th century to an “inclusion” orientation that
emerged in the early 21st century. Gowan (2014-in this issue) focuses
on the history of unemployment research and how we, as a field, have
evolved from a job-loss research focus to a stress focus to, more
recently, a career growth focus. The last article is relevant to our
current reincarnation as a “strategic partner” in organizations today.
Sikora & Ferris (2014-in this issue) propose that the real issue facing
strategic HRM is HR implementation. Using social context factors,
they explain how the success of HRM is not a matter of “strategy” but
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
rather a focus on the line managers responsible for implementing
those HR strategies .Notably this article focuses on the current
challenges facing the field, which is a nice segue for the second
volume of our special issue which will focus more so on HRM in
terms of the present and future. It is our hope that these special issues
will foster additional research onthe fundamentals of HRM and lead to
a better understanding of the significance and contributions of the
field as a whole.
“Early beginnings”: 1400s–1700s
Historically, HRM probably was the earliest evolved management
function, predating other functions such as finance,accounting, and
marketing. Although unrecorded, the actual managing of human
resources doubtless has occurred since the first organization of people
into functioning units such as tribes. As tribes formed and,
particularly, as they evolved from hunting and then farming, a division
of labor undoubtedly arose with recognition of differing productivity
of individuals. This development was a form of division of labor in
which different persons occupied different roles in the productive
society. Craftspersons who could develop tools for farmers and be
supported by the productivity of others engaged in farming doubtless
emerged, and a natural division of labor arose. In short, the
productivity of various crafts and occupations varied, and trade
evolved to takeadvantage of these variations. Whether managed
through the natural functioning of a market and a market allocation
ofproductive roles, or the human resource management of a tribal
leader, the issues of managing human resources emerged. In the late
18th century the Industrial revolution began in Europe and spread to
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
the U.S. This revolution completely changed the way that individuals
earned a living, and led to a shift from an agricultural to an industrial
or manufacturing society. Human skills and craftwork were replaced
with machines, and the factory system was born (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). Factories and manufacturing greatly improved production, and
altered employment relationships. For instance, these systems
replaced the self-employment independent contractor system and
created permanent wage earners who were employed by
organizations. At the same time, it resulted in the rationalization of
work and another division of labor. Workers who had been skilled
contractors became the tenders of machines and performed highly
specialized routine tasks. The new manufacturing system also created
the need to supervise large numbers of workers, and management
practices tended to be autocratic and paternalistic (Dulebohn et
al.,1995). Management expressed little concern for the safety or
welfare of workers, and workers were controlled with force and fear
(Slichter, 1919). This approach to management continued until the end
of the 19th century.
“Personnel”: 1800s
Around 1800, an English factory owner named Robert Owens altered
a number of aspects of the employment relationship and developed
“welfare to work”systems in order to improve both social and working
conditions for workers (Dulebohn et al., 1995).In particular, he taught
that his workers' temperance and cleanliness improved working
conditions, and refused to employ young children ( Davis, 1957). In
some cases, these practices evolved into more elaborate paternalistic
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
systems where workers were provided with company housing,
company stores, company schools,
apprenticeships, pensions, life and accident insurance, hospitals, and
libraries (Davis, 1957). Welfareto-work systems can be defined as
“anything for the comfort and improvement, intellectual or social, of
the employees, over and above wages paid, which is not a necessity of
the industry or required by law” (U.S. Bureau of Labor, 1919, p. 8).
These new systems were designed to promote good management and
worker relations, increase productivity, and avert worker conflict and
unionization ( Dulebohn et al., 1995). Not surprisingly, these practices
set the stage for many of the employee benefits that are used to attract,
motivate, and retain workers today. They have also become the norm
for many benefit systems in Western nations. In the era following the
civil war (1860s), labormanagement disputes began to occur.
Employers wanted to thwart unions and believed that changes in
working conditions would enhance performance (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). As a result, welfare-towork programs escalated, but these
programs were actually designed to benefit businesses not workers. As
these programs grew in scope in the late 1800s, organizations hired
welfare secretaries to administer them, and eventually the role of
welfare secretary evolved into the employment manager and, at a later
point in time, the “personnel manager”. The primary functions of this
role were to hire, fire, discipline, and reward employees, which meant
that line managers no longer had to focus on managing and retaining
the workforce. Many organizations began to enact paternalistic
practices, but some employers were mistreating employees, which led
crafts workers and others to join protection societies later known as
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
labor unions (Scarpello, 2008). As might be expected ,employers
fought the growth of unions and took a number of steps to curtail
unionization, including court injunctions or forcing applicants to sign
yellow dog contracts indicating that they would not join a union.
“Labor relations/human relations”: 1900s–1970s
With the advent of manufacturing, employers sought ways of
enhancing efficiency and productivity. Engineers (e.g., Frederick
Taylor), Industrial and Organizational Psychologists (e.g., Lillian
Gilbreath), sociologists (e.g., Max Weber), and Management scholars
(e.g., Heny Fayol) focused on strategies for enhancing organizational
efficiency, and developed new approaches to managing workers. For
instance, the Scientific Management approach fostered by Frederick
Taylor (1947) emphasized the rationalization of work by studying the
job scientifically, breaking it down into components, and determining
the one best way to perform the job. This approach diminished worker
autonomy and stressed that employees should be supervised closely to
ensure that they performed the job exactly as expected. At the same
time Max Weber (1927) suggested that organizational efficiency could
be improved by using legitimate rules and authority systems. The new
design of jobs and the resultant autocratic management systems
spawned even greater levels of conflict between workers and
organizations. In the 1930s the National Labor Relations Act, the
Norris-LaGuardia Act (1932), the Wagner Act (1935), and other laws
led to the growth of unions. As a result of increased unionization and
use of scientific management principles, personnel departments grew
and focused on job analysis as the basis for employee selection,
training, job evaluation, and compensation. In addition, The Wagner
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
Act defined the New Deal industrial relations system and “declared
that the goal of public policy was to encourage the practice of
collective bargaining, to eliminate labor's inequality of bargaining
power, and introduce democratic rights of due process to
industry”(Kaufman, 1993, p. 61). In view of these policies, industrial
relations (IR) departments emerged in organizations in order to
manage collective bargaining agreements (Dulebohn et al., 1995).
World War II created an exceptional demand for labor and slowed
temporarily the growth of unions (Dulebohn et al., 1995) .The war
brought wage freezes and prohibited strikes, but following the war
there was an increased need for HRM. The post-war era brought
renewed interest in unions, and workers were determined to recover
their lost wage increases. In addition, federal labor laws and wage
controls created an increased demand for personnel departments. In
addition, the growing power of unions and labor unrest resulted in the
passage of the Taft Hartley Act. The act was designed to equalize
power between labor and management. During the 1940s and 1950s,
unions represented 47% of the U. S. labor force, and 95% of
companies had at least one union (Dulebohn et al., 1995). At the same
time, employers began to hire more educated personnel managers
because of the constraints posed by unions and the need to manage
unionized workforces. In the 1930s, employment managers began to
argue that conflict was not inherent in labor relations, but was caused
by poor management and work systems. As a result, researchers
conducted a series of experiments to examine the effects of different
work systems on worker productivity (Roethlisberger & Dickson,
1939). These researchers found that the social elements and workers'
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
needs had an important impact on the output and workers' well-being.
This new approach was labeled the Human Relations movement, and
emphasized that workers have social needs. The Human Relations
approach broadened the view of HRM beyond the individual and the
job, and stressed the work group and social structures of organizations
(Dulebohn et al., 1995; Scarpello, 2008). In the 1950s, the Human
Relations movement in the field of HRM challenged the assumption
that people did not want to work , and it stressed that human resources
made important contributions to organizations. As a result, the term
“personnel management” was replaced with the label “human resource
management”, which emphasized that human resources were assets to
organizations. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Human Relations approach
evolved into the Quality of Work Life (QWL) era. This approach
attempted to satisfy the interests of employees and organizations by
stressing both employee well-being and productivity. For example,
management developed new programs that underscored job
enrichment and career development; in addition, new policies were
designed to improve workers' quality of work life in order to enhance
their satisfaction and commitment to organizations. During this era,
managers also developed programs that focused on labor-management
cooperation and promoted collaborative efforts to improve workers'
quality of work life. The QWL era was facilitated by legislation that
highlighted fair employment practices including Civil Rights Acts
(1964), Occupational Safety and Health Act (1970), and Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974). The passage of these acts,
and the development of new QWL programs, promoted the need for
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
professional Human Resource managers and new forms of HRM
policies and practices in organizations.
“Strategic HRM”: 1980s to present
All of these above-mentioned changes and challenges prompted the
development of a “new” HRM function (Kochan, Katz, & McKersie,
1986). This new function is much more of a strategic partner in
organizations due to the recognition that human resources are critical
to the functioning of organizations in the service and knowledge
economies. In addition, the late 20th century saw an increased reliance
on employee-relations, and HRM was called on to foster a sense of
trust in the relations between managers and workers (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). American organizations began to stress non-unionized HRM
practices and to adopt many of the Japanese management principles
that emphasized employees as critical resources that can give
organizations a competitive advantage. As a result, HRM has evolved
from a “personnel” function to a human relations, then labor relations,
then industrial relations, and most recently strategic HRM function. In
the articles that follow, this evolution of the field is further articulated
in terms of both general and specific events. To set the stage for
examining our roots, Kaufman (2014-in this issue) traces the
development of HRM from the labor problem that surfaced in the 19th
century to the multifaceted strategic HRM/industrial
relations/personnel economics nature of the field today. Similarly De
Nisi, Wilson and Bite man (2014in this issue) review the history of
HRM throughout the 20th century but focus on how this evolution of
the field is characterized in terms of the HR research —practice gap.
In an interesting twist, Boudreau and Lawler (2014-in this issue) trace
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
the evolution of the field from a perceptual rather than historical
perspective. Based on survey data from HR leaders spanning two
decades, they share their findings regarding the changing role of HRM
based on the evolution of perceptions regarding the progress of the
field of HRM. The next two articles focus on specific issues/problems
that are fundamental to the evolution of our field. Nkomo and Hoobler
(2014-in this issue) explain the shift in HRM with respect to our
societal and thus organizational ideologies regarding “diversity” .As a
nation, we've evolved from a “white supremacy” view of diversity that
characterized the early 20th century to an “inclusion” orientation that
emerged in the early 21st century. Gowan (2014-in this issue) focuses
on the history of unemployment research and how we, as a field, have
evolved from a job-loss research focus to a stress focus to, more
recently, a career growth focus. The last article is relevant to our
current reincarnation as a “strategic partner” in organizations today.
Sikora & Ferris (2014-in this issue) propose that the real issue facing
strategic HRM is HR implementation. Using social context factors,
they explain how the success of HRM is not a matter of “strategy” but
rather a focus on the line managers responsible for implementing
those HR strategies .Notably this article focuses on the current
challenges facing the field, which is a nice segue for the second
volume of our special issue which will focus more so on HRM in
terms of the present and future. It is our hope that these special issues
will foster additional research onthe fundamentals of HRM and lead to
a better understanding of the significance and contributions of the
field as a whole.
“Early beginnings”: 1400s–1700s
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
Historically, HRM probably was the earliest evolved management
function, predating other functions such as finance,accounting, and
marketing. Although unrecorded, the actual managing of human
resources doubtless has occurred since the first organization of people
into functioning units such as tribes. As tribes formed and,
particularly, as they evolved from hunting and then farming, a division
of labor undoubtedly arose with recognition of differing productivity
of individuals. This development was a form of division of labor in
which different persons occupied different roles in the productive
society. Craftspersons who could develop tools for farmers and be
supported by the productivity of others engaged in farming doubtless
emerged, and a natural division of labor arose. In short, the
productivity of various crafts and occupations varied, and trade
evolved to takeadvantage of these variations. Whether managed
through the natural functioning of a market and a market allocation
ofproductive roles, or the human resource management of a tribal
leader, the issues of managing human resources emerged. In the late
18th century the Industrial revolution began in Europe and spread to
the U.S. This revolution completely changed the way that individuals
earned a living, and led to a shift from an agricultural to an industrial
or manufacturing society. Human skills and craftwork were replaced
with machines, and the factory system was born (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). Factories and manufacturing greatly improved production, and
altered employment relationships. For instance, these systems
replaced the self-employment independent contractor system and
created permanent wage earners who were employed by
organizations. At the same time, it resulted in the rationalization of
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
work and another division of labor. Workers who had been skilled
contractors became the tenders of machines and performed highly
specialized routine tasks. The new manufacturing system also created
the need to supervise large numbers of workers, and management
practices tended to be autocratic and paternalistic (Dulebohn et
al.,1995). Management expressed little concern for the safety or
welfare of workers, and workers were controlled with force and fear
(Slichter, 1919). This approach to management continued until the end
of the 19th century.
“Personnel”: 1800s
Around 1800, an English factory owner named Robert Owens altered
a number of aspects of the employment relationship and developed
“welfare to work”systems in order to improve both social and working
conditions for workers (Dulebohn et al., 1995).In particular, he taught
that his workers' temperance and cleanliness improved working
conditions, and refused to employ young children ( Davis, 1957). In
some cases, these practices evolved into more elaborate paternalistic
systems where workers were provided with company housing,
company stores, company schools,
apprenticeships, pensions, life and accident insurance, hospitals, and
libraries (Davis, 1957). Welfareto-work systems can be defined as
“anything for the comfort and improvement, intellectual or social, of
the employees, over and above wages paid, which is not a necessity of
the industry or required by law” (U.S. Bureau of Labor, 1919, p. 8).
These new systems were designed to promote good management and
worker relations, increase productivity, and avert worker conflict and
unionization ( Dulebohn et al., 1995). Not surprisingly, these practices
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
set the stage for many of the employee benefits that are used to attract,
motivate, and retain workers today. They have also become the norm
for many benefit systems in Western nations. In the era following the
civil war (1860s), labormanagement disputes began to occur.
Employers wanted to thwart unions and believed that changes in
working conditions would enhance performance (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). As a result, welfare-towork programs escalated, but these
programs were actually designed to benefit businesses not workers. As
these programs grew in scope in the late 1800s, organizations hired
welfare secretaries to administer them, and eventually the role of
welfare secretary evolved into the employment manager and, at a later
point in time, the “personnel manager”. The primary functions of this
role were to hire, fire, discipline, and reward employees, which meant
that line managers no longer had to focus on managing and retaining
the workforce. Many organizations began to enact paternalistic
practices, but some employers were mistreating employees, which led
crafts workers and others to join protection societies later known as
labor unions (Scarpello, 2008). As might be expected ,employers
fought the growth of unions and took a number of steps to curtail
unionization, including court injunctions or forcing applicants to sign
yellow dog contracts indicating that they would not join a union.
“Labor relations/human relations”: 1900s–1970s
With the advent of manufacturing, employers sought ways of
enhancing efficiency and productivity. Engineers (e.g., Frederick
Taylor), Industrial and Organizational Psychologists (e.g., Lillian
Gilbreath), sociologists (e.g., Max Weber), and Management scholars
(e.g., Heny Fayol) focused on strategies for enhancing organizational
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
efficiency, and developed new approaches to managing workers. For
instance, the Scientific Management approach fostered by Frederick
Taylor (1947) emphasized the rationalization of work by studying the
job scientifically, breaking it down into components, and determining
the one best way to perform the job. This approach diminished worker
autonomy and stressed that employees should be supervised closely to
ensure that they performed the job exactly as expected. At the same
time Max Weber (1927) suggested that organizational efficiency could
be improved by using legitimate rules and authority systems. The new
design of jobs and the resultant autocratic management systems
spawned even greater levels of conflict between workers and
organizations. In the 1930s the National Labor Relations Act, the
Norris-LaGuardia Act (1932), the Wagner Act (1935), and other laws
led to the growth of unions. As a result of increased unionization and
use of scientific management principles, personnel departments grew
and focused on job analysis as the basis for employee selection,
training, job evaluation, and compensation. In addition, The Wagner
Act defined the New Deal industrial relations system and “declared
that the goal of public policy was to encourage the practice of
collective bargaining, to eliminate labor's inequality of bargaining
power, and introduce democratic rights of due process to
industry”(Kaufman, 1993, p. 61). In view of these policies, industrial
relations (IR) departments emerged in organizations in order to
manage collective bargaining agreements (Dulebohn et al., 1995).
World War II created an exceptional demand for labor and slowed
temporarily the growth of unions (Dulebohn et al., 1995) .The war
brought wage freezes and prohibited strikes, but following the war
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
there was an increased need for HRM. The post-war era brought
renewed interest in unions, and workers were determined to recover
their lost wage increases. In addition, federal labor laws and wage
controls created an increased demand for personnel departments. In
addition, the growing power of unions and labor unrest resulted in the
passage of the Taft Hartley Act. The act was designed to equalize
power between labor and management. During the 1940s and 1950s,
unions represented 47% of the U. S. labor force, and 95% of
companies had at least one union (Dulebohn et al., 1995). At the same
time, employers began to hire more educated personnel managers
because of the constraints posed by unions and the need to manage
unionized workforces. In the 1930s, employment managers began to
argue that conflict was not inherent in labor relations, but was caused
by poor management and work systems. As a result, researchers
conducted a series of experiments to examine the effects of different
work systems on worker productivity (Roethlisberger & Dickson,
1939). These researchers found that the social elements and workers'
needs had an important impact on the output and workers' well-being.
This new approach was labeled the Human Relations movement, and
emphasized that workers have social needs. The Human Relations
approach broadened the view of HRM beyond the individual and the
job, and stressed the work group and social structures of organizations
(Dulebohn et al., 1995; Scarpello, 2008). In the 1950s, the Human
Relations movement in the field of HRM challenged the assumption
that people did not want to work , and it stressed that human resources
made important contributions to organizations. As a result, the term
“personnel management” was replaced with the label “human resource
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
management”, which emphasized that human resources were assets to
organizations. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Human Relations approach
evolved into the Quality of Work Life (QWL) era. This approach
attempted to satisfy the interests of employees and organizations by
stressing both employee well-being and productivity. For example,
management developed new programs that underscored job
enrichment and career development; in addition, new policies were
designed to improve workers' quality of work life in order to enhance
their satisfaction and commitment to organizations. During this era,
managers also developed programs that focused on labor-management
cooperation and promoted collaborative efforts to improve workers'
quality of work life. The QWL era was facilitated by legislation that
highlighted fair employment practices including Civil Rights Acts
(1964), Occupational Safety and Health Act (1970), and Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974). The passage of these acts,
and the development of new QWL programs, promoted the need for
professional Human Resource managers and new forms of HRM
policies and practices in organizations.
“Strategic HRM”: 1980s to present
All of these above-mentioned changes and challenges prompted the
development of a “new” HRM function (Kochan, Katz, & McKersie,
1986). This new function is much more of a strategic partner in
organizations due to the recognition that human resources are critical
to the functioning of organizations in the service and knowledge
economies. In addition, the late 20th century saw an increased reliance
on employee-relations, and HRM was called on to foster a sense of
trust in the relations between managers and workers (Dulebohn et al.,
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
1995). American organizations began to stress non-unionized HRM
practices and to adopt many of the Japanese management principles
that emphasized employees as critical resources that can give
organizations a competitive advantage. As a result, HRM has evolved
from a “personnel” function to a human relations, then labor relations,
then industrial relations, and most recently strategic HRM function. In
the articles that follow, this evolution of the field is further articulated
in terms of both general and specific events. To set the stage for
examining our roots, Kaufman (2014-in this issue) traces the
development of HRM from the labor problem that surfaced in the 19th
century to the multifaceted strategic HRM/industrial
relations/personnel economics nature of the field today. Similarly De
Nisi, Wilson and Bite man (2014in this issue) review the history of
HRM throughout the 20th century but focus on how this evolution of
the field is characterized in terms of the HR research —practice gap.
In an interesting twist, Boudreau and Lawler (2014-in this issue) trace
the evolution of the field from a perceptual rather than historical
perspective. Based on survey data from HR leaders spanning two
decades, they share their findings regarding the changing role of HRM
based on the evolution of perceptions regarding the progress of the
field of HRM. The next two articles focus on specific issues/problems
that are fundamental to the evolution of our field. Nkomo and Hoobler
(2014-in this issue) explain the shift in HRM with respect to our
societal and thus organizational ideologies regarding “diversity” .As a
nation, we've evolved from a “white supremacy” view of diversity that
characterized the early 20th century to an “inclusion” orientation that
emerged in the early 21st century. Gowan (2014-in this issue) focuses
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
on the history of unemployment research and how we, as a field, have
evolved from a job-loss research focus to a stress focus to, more
recently, a career growth focus. The last article is relevant to our
current reincarnation as a “strategic partner” in organizations today.
Sikora & Ferris (2014-in this issue) propose that the real issue facing
strategic HRM is HR implementation. Using social context factors,
they explain how the success of HRM is not a matter of “strategy” but
rather a focus on the line managers responsible for implementing
those HR strategies .Notably this article focuses on the current
challenges facing the field, which is a nice segue for the second
volume of our special issue which will focus more so on HRM in
terms of the present and future. It is our hope that these special issues
will foster additional research onthe fundamentals of HRM and lead to
a better understanding of the significance and contributions of the
field as a whole.
“Early beginnings”: 1400s–1700s
Historically, HRM probably was the earliest evolved management
function, predating other functions such as finance,accounting, and
marketing. Although unrecorded, the actual managing of human
resources doubtless has occurred since the first organization of people
into functioning units such as tribes. As tribes formed and,
particularly, as they evolved from hunting and then farming, a division
of labor undoubtedly arose with recognition of differing productivity
of individuals. This development was a form of division of labor in
which different persons occupied different roles in the productive
society. Craftspersons who could develop tools for farmers and be
supported by the productivity of others engaged in farming doubtless
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
emerged, and a natural division of labor arose. In short, the
productivity of various crafts and occupations varied, and trade
evolved to takeadvantage of these variations. Whether managed
through the natural functioning of a market and a market allocation
ofproductive roles, or the human resource management of a tribal
leader, the issues of managing human resources emerged. In the late
18th century the Industrial revolution began in Europe and spread to
the U.S. This revolution completely changed the way that individuals
earned a living, and led to a shift from an agricultural to an industrial
or manufacturing society. Human skills and craftwork were replaced
with machines, and the factory system was born (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). Factories and manufacturing greatly improved production, and
altered employment relationships. For instance, these systems
replaced the self-employment independent contractor system and
created permanent wage earners who were employed by
organizations. At the same time, it resulted in the rationalization of
work and another division of labor. Workers who had been skilled
contractors became the tenders of machines and performed highly
specialized routine tasks. The new manufacturing system also created
the need to supervise large numbers of workers, and management
practices tended to be autocratic and paternalistic (Dulebohn et
al.,1995). Management expressed little concern for the safety or
welfare of workers, and workers were controlled with force and fear
(Slichter, 1919). This approach to management continued until the end
of the 19th century.
“Personnel”: 1800s
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
Around 1800, an English factory owner named Robert Owens altered
a number of aspects of the employment relationship and developed
“welfare to work”systems in order to improve both social and working
conditions for workers (Dulebohn et al., 1995).In particular, he taught
that his workers' temperance and cleanliness improved working
conditions, and refused to employ young children ( Davis, 1957). In
some cases, these practices evolved into more elaborate paternalistic
systems where workers were provided with company housing,
company stores, company schools,
apprenticeships, pensions, life and accident insurance, hospitals, and
libraries (Davis, 1957). Welfareto-work systems can be defined as
“anything for the comfort and improvement, intellectual or social, of
the employees, over and above wages paid, which is not a necessity of
the industry or required by law” (U.S. Bureau of Labor, 1919, p. 8).
These new systems were designed to promote good management and
worker relations, increase productivity, and avert worker conflict and
unionization ( Dulebohn et al., 1995). Not surprisingly, these practices
set the stage for many of the employee benefits that are used to attract,
motivate, and retain workers today. They have also become the norm
for many benefit systems in Western nations. In the era following the
civil war (1860s), labormanagement disputes began to occur.
Employers wanted to thwart unions and believed that changes in
working conditions would enhance performance (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). As a result, welfare-towork programs escalated, but these
programs were actually designed to benefit businesses not workers. As
these programs grew in scope in the late 1800s, organizations hired
welfare secretaries to administer them, and eventually the role of
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
welfare secretary evolved into the employment manager and, at a later
point in time, the “personnel manager”. The primary functions of this
role were to hire, fire, discipline, and reward employees, which meant
that line managers no longer had to focus on managing and retaining
the workforce. Many organizations began to enact paternalistic
practices, but some employers were mistreating employees, which led
crafts workers and others to join protection societies later known as
labor unions (Scarpello, 2008). As might be expected ,employers
fought the growth of unions and took a number of steps to curtail
unionization, including court injunctions or forcing applicants to sign
yellow dog contracts indicating that they would not join a union.
“Labor relations/human relations”: 1900s–1970s
With the advent of manufacturing, employers sought ways of
enhancing efficiency and productivity. Engineers (e.g., Frederick
Taylor), Industrial and Organizational Psychologists (e.g., Lillian
Gilbreath), sociologists (e.g., Max Weber), and Management scholars
(e.g., Heny Fayol) focused on strategies for enhancing organizational
efficiency, and developed new approaches to managing workers. For
instance, the Scientific Management approach fostered by Frederick
Taylor (1947) emphasized the rationalization of work by studying the
job scientifically, breaking it down into components, and determining
the one best way to perform the job. This approach diminished worker
autonomy and stressed that employees should be supervised closely to
ensure that they performed the job exactly as expected. At the same
time Max Weber (1927) suggested that organizational efficiency could
be improved by using legitimate rules and authority systems. The new
design of jobs and the resultant autocratic management systems
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
spawned even greater levels of conflict between workers and
organizations. In the 1930s the National Labor Relations Act, the
Norris-LaGuardia Act (1932), the Wagner Act (1935), and other laws
led to the growth of unions. As a result of increased unionization and
use of scientific management principles, personnel departments grew
and focused on job analysis as the basis for employee selection,
training, job evaluation, and compensation. In addition, The Wagner
Act defined the New Deal industrial relations system and “declared
that the goal of public policy was to encourage the practice of
collective bargaining, to eliminate labor's inequality of bargaining
power, and introduce democratic rights of due process to
industry”(Kaufman, 1993, p. 61). In view of these policies, industrial
relations (IR) departments emerged in organizations in order to
manage collective bargaining agreements (Dulebohn et al., 1995).
World War II created an exceptional demand for labor and slowed
temporarily the growth of unions (Dulebohn et al., 1995) .The war
brought wage freezes and prohibited strikes, but following the war
there was an increased need for HRM. The post-war era brought
renewed interest in unions, and workers were determined to recover
their lost wage increases. In addition, federal labor laws and wage
controls created an increased demand for personnel departments. In
addition, the growing power of unions and labor unrest resulted in the
passage of the Taft Hartley Act. The act was designed to equalize
power between labor and management. During the 1940s and 1950s,
unions represented 47% of the U. S. labor force, and 95% of
companies had at least one union (Dulebohn et al., 1995). At the same
time, employers began to hire more educated personnel managers
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
because of the constraints posed by unions and the need to manage
unionized workforces. In the 1930s, employment managers began to
argue that conflict was not inherent in labor relations, but was caused
by poor management and work systems. As a result, researchers
conducted a series of experiments to examine the effects of different
work systems on worker productivity (Roethlisberger & Dickson,
1939). These researchers found that the social elements and workers'
needs had an important impact on the output and workers' well-being.
This new approach was labeled the Human Relations movement, and
emphasized that workers have social needs. The Human Relations
approach broadened the view of HRM beyond the individual and the
job, and stressed the work group and social structures of organizations
(Dulebohn et al., 1995; Scarpello, 2008). In the 1950s, the Human
Relations movement in the field of HRM challenged the assumption
that people did not want to work , and it stressed that human resources
made important contributions to organizations. As a result, the term
“personnel management” was replaced with the label “human resource
management”, which emphasized that human resources were assets to
organizations. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Human Relations approach
evolved into the Quality of Work Life (QWL) era. This approach
attempted to satisfy the interests of employees and organizations by
stressing both employee well-being and productivity. For example,
management developed new programs that underscored job
enrichment and career development; in addition, new policies were
designed to improve workers' quality of work life in order to enhance
their satisfaction and commitment to organizations. During this era,
managers also developed programs that focused on labor-management
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
cooperation and promoted collaborative efforts to improve workers'
quality of work life. The QWL era was facilitated by legislation that
highlighted fair employment practices including Civil Rights Acts
(1964), Occupational Safety and Health Act (1970), and Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974). The passage of these acts,
and the development of new QWL programs, promoted the need for
professional Human Resource managers and new forms of HRM
policies and practices in organizations.
“Strategic HRM”: 1980s to present
All of these above-mentioned changes and challenges prompted the
development of a “new” HRM function (Kochan, Katz, & McKersie,
1986). This new function is much more of a strategic partner in
organizations due to the recognition that human resources are critical
to the functioning of organizations in the service and knowledge
economies. In addition, the late 20th century saw an increased reliance
on employee-relations, and HRM was called on to foster a sense of
trust in the relations between managers and workers (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). American organizations began to stress non-unionized HRM
practices and to adopt many of the Japanese management principles
that emphasized employees as critical resources that can give
organizations a competitive advantage. As a result, HRM has evolved
from a “personnel” function to a human relations, then labor relations,
then industrial relations, and most recently strategic HRM function. In
the articles that follow, this evolution of the field is further articulated
in terms of both general and specific events. To set the stage for
examining our roots, Kaufman (2014-in this issue) traces the
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
development of HRM from the labor problem that surfaced in the 19th
century to the multifaceted strategic HRM/industrial
relations/personnel economics nature of the field today. Similarly De
Nisi, Wilson and Bite man (2014in this issue) review the history of
HRM throughout the 20th century but focus on how this evolution of
the field is characterized in terms of the HR research —practice gap.
In an interesting twist, Boudreau and Lawler (2014-in this issue) trace
the evolution of the field from a perceptual rather than historical
perspective. Based on survey data from HR leaders spanning two
decades, they share their findings regarding the changing role of HRM
based on the evolution of perceptions regarding the progress of the
field of HRM. The next two articles focus on specific issues/problems
that are fundamental to the evolution of our field. Nkomo and Hoobler
(2014-in this issue) explain the shift in HRM with respect to our
societal and thus organizational ideologies regarding “diversity” .As a
nation, we've evolved from a “white supremacy” view of diversity that
characterized the early 20th century to an “inclusion” orientation that
emerged in the early 21st century. Gowan (2014-in this issue) focuses
on the history of unemployment research and how we, as a field, have
evolved from a job-loss research focus to a stress focus to, more
recently, a career growth focus. The last article is relevant to our
current reincarnation as a “strategic partner” in organizations today.
Sikora & Ferris (2014-in this issue) propose that the real issue facing
strategic HRM is HR implementation. Using social context factors,
they explain how the success of HRM is not a matter of “strategy” but
rather a focus on the line managers responsible for implementing
those HR strategies .Notably this article focuses on the current
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
challenges facing the field, which is a nice segue for the second
volume of our special issue which will focus more so on HRM in
terms of the present and future. It is our hope that these special issues
will foster additional research onthe fundamentals of HRM and lead to
a better understanding of the significance and contributions of the
field as a whole.
“Early beginnings”: 1400s–1700s
Historically, HRM probably was the earliest evolved management
function, predating other functions such as finance,accounting, and
marketing. Although unrecorded, the actual managing of human
resources doubtless has occurred since the first organization of people
into functioning units such as tribes. As tribes formed and,
particularly, as they evolved from hunting and then farming, a division
of labor undoubtedly arose with recognition of differing productivity
of individuals. This development was a form of division of labor in
which different persons occupied different roles in the productive
society. Craftspersons who could develop tools for farmers and be
supported by the productivity of others engaged in farming doubtless
emerged, and a natural division of labor arose. In short, the
productivity of various crafts and occupations varied, and trade
evolved to takeadvantage of these variations. Whether managed
through the natural functioning of a market and a market allocation
ofproductive roles, or the human resource management of a tribal
leader, the issues of managing human resources emerged. In the late
18th century the Industrial revolution began in Europe and spread to
the U.S. This revolution completely changed the way that individuals
earned a living, and led to a shift from an agricultural to an industrial
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
or manufacturing society. Human skills and craftwork were replaced
with machines, and the factory system was born (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). Factories and manufacturing greatly improved production, and
altered employment relationships. For instance, these systems
replaced the self-employment independent contractor system and
created permanent wage earners who were employed by
organizations. At the same time, it resulted in the rationalization of
work and another division of labor. Workers who had been skilled
contractors became the tenders of machines and performed highly
specialized routine tasks. The new manufacturing system also created
the need to supervise large numbers of workers, and management
practices tended to be autocratic and paternalistic (Dulebohn et
al.,1995). Management expressed little concern for the safety or
welfare of workers, and workers were controlled with force and fear
(Slichter, 1919). This approach to management continued until the end
of the 19th century.
“Personnel”: 1800s
Around 1800, an English factory owner named Robert Owens altered
a number of aspects of the employment relationship and developed
“welfare to work”systems in order to improve both social and working
conditions for workers (Dulebohn et al., 1995).In particular, he taught
that his workers' temperance and cleanliness improved working
conditions, and refused to employ young children ( Davis, 1957). In
some cases, these practices evolved into more elaborate paternalistic
systems where workers were provided with company housing,
company stores, company schools,
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
apprenticeships, pensions, life and accident insurance, hospitals, and
libraries (Davis, 1957). Welfareto-work systems can be defined as
“anything for the comfort and improvement, intellectual or social, of
the employees, over and above wages paid, which is not a necessity of
the industry or required by law” (U.S. Bureau of Labor, 1919, p. 8).
These new systems were designed to promote good management and
worker relations, increase productivity, and avert worker conflict and
unionization ( Dulebohn et al., 1995). Not surprisingly, these practices
set the stage for many of the employee benefits that are used to attract,
motivate, and retain workers today. They have also become the norm
for many benefit systems in Western nations. In the era following the
civil war (1860s), labormanagement disputes began to occur.
Employers wanted to thwart unions and believed that changes in
working conditions would enhance performance (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). As a result, welfare-towork programs escalated, but these
programs were actually designed to benefit businesses not workers. As
these programs grew in scope in the late 1800s, organizations hired
welfare secretaries to administer them, and eventually the role of
welfare secretary evolved into the employment manager and, at a later
point in time, the “personnel manager”. The primary functions of this
role were to hire, fire, discipline, and reward employees, which meant
that line managers no longer had to focus on managing and retaining
the workforce. Many organizations began to enact paternalistic
practices, but some employers were mistreating employees, which led
crafts workers and others to join protection societies later known as
labor unions (Scarpello, 2008). As might be expected ,employers
fought the growth of unions and took a number of steps to curtail
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
unionization, including court injunctions or forcing applicants to sign
yellow dog contracts indicating that they would not join a union.
“Labor relations/human relations”: 1900s–1970s
With the advent of manufacturing, employers sought ways of
enhancing efficiency and productivity. Engineers (e.g., Frederick
Taylor), Industrial and Organizational Psychologists (e.g., Lillian
Gilbreath), sociologists (e.g., Max Weber), and Management scholars
(e.g., Heny Fayol) focused on strategies for enhancing organizational
efficiency, and developed new approaches to managing workers. For
instance, the Scientific Management approach fostered by Frederick
Taylor (1947) emphasized the rationalization of work by studying the
job scientifically, breaking it down into components, and determining
the one best way to perform the job. This approach diminished worker
autonomy and stressed that employees should be supervised closely to
ensure that they performed the job exactly as expected. At the same
time Max Weber (1927) suggested that organizational efficiency could
be improved by using legitimate rules and authority systems. The new
design of jobs and the resultant autocratic management systems
spawned even greater levels of conflict between workers and
organizations. In the 1930s the National Labor Relations Act, the
Norris-LaGuardia Act (1932), the Wagner Act (1935), and other laws
led to the growth of unions. As a result of increased unionization and
use of scientific management principles, personnel departments grew
and focused on job analysis as the basis for employee selection,
training, job evaluation, and compensation. In addition, The Wagner
Act defined the New Deal industrial relations system and “declared
that the goal of public policy was to encourage the practice of
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
collective bargaining, to eliminate labor's inequality of bargaining
power, and introduce democratic rights of due process to
industry”(Kaufman, 1993, p. 61). In view of these policies, industrial
relations (IR) departments emerged in organizations in order to
manage collective bargaining agreements (Dulebohn et al., 1995).
World War II created an exceptional demand for labor and slowed
temporarily the growth of unions (Dulebohn et al., 1995) .The war
brought wage freezes and prohibited strikes, but following the war
there was an increased need for HRM. The post-war era brought
renewed interest in unions, and workers were determined to recover
their lost wage increases. In addition, federal labor laws and wage
controls created an increased demand for personnel departments. In
addition, the growing power of unions and labor unrest resulted in the
passage of the Taft Hartley Act. The act was designed to equalize
power between labor and management. During the 1940s and 1950s,
unions represented 47% of the U. S. labor force, and 95% of
companies had at least one union (Dulebohn et al., 1995). At the same
time, employers began to hire more educated personnel managers
because of the constraints posed by unions and the need to manage
unionized workforces. In the 1930s, employment managers began to
argue that conflict was not inherent in labor relations, but was caused
by poor management and work systems. As a result, researchers
conducted a series of experiments to examine the effects of different
work systems on worker productivity (Roethlisberger & Dickson,
1939). These researchers found that the social elements and workers'
needs had an important impact on the output and workers' well-being.
This new approach was labeled the Human Relations movement, and
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
emphasized that workers have social needs. The Human Relations
approach broadened the view of HRM beyond the individual and the
job, and stressed the work group and social structures of organizations
(Dulebohn et al., 1995; Scarpello, 2008). In the 1950s, the Human
Relations movement in the field of HRM challenged the assumption
that people did not want to work , and it stressed that human resources
made important contributions to organizations. As a result, the term
“personnel management” was replaced with the label “human resource
management”, which emphasized that human resources were assets to
organizations. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Human Relations approach
evolved into the Quality of Work Life (QWL) era. This approach
attempted to satisfy the interests of employees and organizations by
stressing both employee well-being and productivity. For example,
management developed new programs that underscored job
enrichment and career development; in addition, new policies were
designed to improve workers' quality of work life in order to enhance
their satisfaction and commitment to organizations. During this era,
managers also developed programs that focused on labor-management
cooperation and promoted collaborative efforts to improve workers'
quality of work life. The QWL era was facilitated by legislation that
highlighted fair employment practices including Civil Rights Acts
(1964), Occupational Safety and Health Act (1970), and Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974). The passage of these acts,
and the development of new QWL programs, promoted the need for
professional Human Resource managers and new forms of HRM
policies and practices in organizations.
“Strategic HRM”: 1980s to present
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
All of these above-mentioned changes and challenges prompted the
development of a “new” HRM function (Kochan, Katz, & McKersie,
1986). This new function is much more of a strategic partner in
organizations due to the recognition that human resources are critical
to the functioning of organizations in the service and knowledge
economies. In addition, the late 20th century saw an increased reliance
on employee-relations, and HRM was called on to foster a sense of
trust in the relations between managers and workers (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). American organizations began to stress non-unionized HRM
practices and to adopt many of the Japanese management principles
that emphasized employees as critical resources that can give
organizations a competitive advantage. As a result, HRM has evolved
from a “personnel” function to a human relations, then labor relations,
then industrial relations, and most recently strategic HRM function. In
the articles that follow, this evolution of the field is further articulated
in terms of both general and specific events. To set the stage for
examining our roots, Kaufman (2014-in this issue) traces the
development of HRM from the labor problem that surfaced in the 19th
century to the multifaceted strategic HRM/industrial
relations/personnel economics nature of the field today. Similarly De
Nisi, Wilson and Bite man (2014in this issue) review the history of
HRM throughout the 20th century but focus on how this evolution of
the field is characterized in terms of the HR research —practice gap.
In an interesting twist, Boudreau and Lawler (2014-in this issue) trace
the evolution of the field from a perceptual rather than historical
perspective. Based on survey data from HR leaders spanning two
decades, they share their findings regarding the changing role of HRM
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
based on the evolution of perceptions regarding the progress of the
field of HRM. The next two articles focus on specific issues/problems
that are fundamental to the evolution of our field. Nkomo and Hoobler
(2014-in this issue) explain the shift in HRM with respect to our
societal and thus organizational ideologies regarding “diversity” .As a
nation, we've evolved from a “white supremacy” view of diversity that
characterized the early 20th century to an “inclusion” orientation that
emerged in the early 21st century. Gowan (2014-in this issue) focuses
on the history of unemployment research and how we, as a field, have
evolved from a job-loss research focus to a stress focus to, more
recently, a career growth focus. The last article is relevant to our
current reincarnation as a “strategic partner” in organizations today.
Sikora & Ferris (2014-in this issue) propose that the real issue facing
strategic HRM is HR implementation. Using social context factors,
they explain how the success of HRM is not a matter of “strategy” but
rather a focus on the line managers responsible for implementing
those HR strategies .Notably this article focuses on the current
challenges facing the field, which is a nice segue for the second
volume of our special issue which will focus more so on HRM in
terms of the present and future. It is our hope that these special issues
will foster additional research onthe fundamentals of HRM and lead to
a better understanding of the significance and contributions of the
field as a whole.
“Early beginnings”: 1400s–1700s
Historically, HRM probably was the earliest evolved management
function, predating other functions such as finance,accounting, and
marketing. Although unrecorded, the actual managing of human
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
resources doubtless has occurred since the first organization of people
into functioning units such as tribes. As tribes formed and,
particularly, as they evolved from hunting and then farming, a division
of labor undoubtedly arose with recognition of differing productivity
of individuals. This development was a form of division of labor in
which different persons occupied different roles in the productive
society. Craftspersons who could develop tools for farmers and be
supported by the productivity of others engaged in farming doubtless
emerged, and a natural division of labor arose. In short, the
productivity of various crafts and occupations varied, and trade
evolved to takeadvantage of these variations. Whether managed
through the natural functioning of a market and a market allocation
ofproductive roles, or the human resource management of a tribal
leader, the issues of managing human resources emerged. In the late
18th century the Industrial revolution began in Europe and spread to
the U.S. This revolution completely changed the way that individuals
earned a living, and led to a shift from an agricultural to an industrial
or manufacturing society. Human skills and craftwork were replaced
with machines, and the factory system was born (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). Factories and manufacturing greatly improved production, and
altered employment relationships. For instance, these systems
replaced the self-employment independent contractor system and
created permanent wage earners who were employed by
organizations. At the same time, it resulted in the rationalization of
work and another division of labor. Workers who had been skilled
contractors became the tenders of machines and performed highly
specialized routine tasks. The new manufacturing system also created
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
the need to supervise large numbers of workers, and management
practices tended to be autocratic and paternalistic (Dulebohn et
al.,1995). Management expressed little concern for the safety or
welfare of workers, and workers were controlled with force and fear
(Slichter, 1919). This approach to management continued until the end
of the 19th century.
“Personnel”: 1800s
Around 1800, an English factory owner named Robert Owens altered
a number of aspects of the employment relationship and developed
“welfare to work”systems in order to improve both social and working
conditions for workers (Dulebohn et al., 1995).In particular, he taught
that his workers' temperance and cleanliness improved working
conditions, and refused to employ young children ( Davis, 1957). In
some cases, these practices evolved into more elaborate paternalistic
systems where workers were provided with company housing,
company stores, company schools,
apprenticeships, pensions, life and accident insurance, hospitals, and
libraries (Davis, 1957). Welfareto-work systems can be defined as
“anything for the comfort and improvement, intellectual or social, of
the employees, over and above wages paid, which is not a necessity of
the industry or required by law” (U.S. Bureau of Labor, 1919, p. 8).
These new systems were designed to promote good management and
worker relations, increase productivity, and avert worker conflict and
unionization ( Dulebohn et al., 1995). Not surprisingly, these practices
set the stage for many of the employee benefits that are used to attract,
motivate, and retain workers today. They have also become the norm
for many benefit systems in Western nations. In the era following the
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
civil war (1860s), labormanagement disputes began to occur.
Employers wanted to thwart unions and believed that changes in
working conditions would enhance performance (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). As a result, welfare-towork programs escalated, but these
programs were actually designed to benefit businesses not workers. As
these programs grew in scope in the late 1800s, organizations hired
welfare secretaries to administer them, and eventually the role of
welfare secretary evolved into the employment manager and, at a later
point in time, the “personnel manager”. The primary functions of this
role were to hire, fire, discipline, and reward employees, which meant
that line managers no longer had to focus on managing and retaining
the workforce. Many organizations began to enact paternalistic
practices, but some employers were mistreating employees, which led
crafts workers and others to join protection societies later known as
labor unions (Scarpello, 2008). As might be expected ,employers
fought the growth of unions and took a number of steps to curtail
unionization, including court injunctions or forcing applicants to sign
yellow dog contracts indicating that they would not join a union.
“Labor relations/human relations”: 1900s–1970s
With the advent of manufacturing, employers sought ways of
enhancing efficiency and productivity. Engineers (e.g., Frederick
Taylor), Industrial and Organizational Psychologists (e.g., Lillian
Gilbreath), sociologists (e.g., Max Weber), and Management scholars
(e.g., Heny Fayol) focused on strategies for enhancing organizational
efficiency, and developed new approaches to managing workers. For
instance, the Scientific Management approach fostered by Frederick
Taylor (1947) emphasized the rationalization of work by studying the
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
job scientifically, breaking it down into components, and determining
the one best way to perform the job. This approach diminished worker
autonomy and stressed that employees should be supervised closely to
ensure that they performed the job exactly as expected. At the same
time Max Weber (1927) suggested that organizational efficiency could
be improved by using legitimate rules and authority systems. The new
design of jobs and the resultant autocratic management systems
spawned even greater levels of conflict between workers and
organizations. In the 1930s the National Labor Relations Act, the
Norris-LaGuardia Act (1932), the Wagner Act (1935), and other laws
led to the growth of unions. As a result of increased unionization and
use of scientific management principles, personnel departments grew
and focused on job analysis as the basis for employee selection,
training, job evaluation, and compensation. In addition, The Wagner
Act defined the New Deal industrial relations system and “declared
that the goal of public policy was to encourage the practice of
collective bargaining, to eliminate labor's inequality of bargaining
power, and introduce democratic rights of due process to
industry”(Kaufman, 1993, p. 61). In view of these policies, industrial
relations (IR) departments emerged in organizations in order to
manage collective bargaining agreements (Dulebohn et al., 1995).
World War II created an exceptional demand for labor and slowed
temporarily the growth of unions (Dulebohn et al., 1995) .The war
brought wage freezes and prohibited strikes, but following the war
there was an increased need for HRM. The post-war era brought
renewed interest in unions, and workers were determined to recover
their lost wage increases. In addition, federal labor laws and wage
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
controls created an increased demand for personnel departments. In
addition, the growing power of unions and labor unrest resulted in the
passage of the Taft Hartley Act. The act was designed to equalize
power between labor and management. During the 1940s and 1950s,
unions represented 47% of the U. S. labor force, and 95% of
companies had at least one union (Dulebohn et al., 1995). At the same
time, employers began to hire more educated personnel managers
because of the constraints posed by unions and the need to manage
unionized workforces. In the 1930s, employment managers began to
argue that conflict was not inherent in labor relations, but was caused
by poor management and work systems. As a result, researchers
conducted a series of experiments to examine the effects of different
work systems on worker productivity (Roethlisberger & Dickson,
1939). These researchers found that the social elements and workers'
needs had an important impact on the output and workers' well-being.
This new approach was labeled the Human Relations movement, and
emphasized that workers have social needs. The Human Relations
approach broadened the view of HRM beyond the individual and the
job, and stressed the work group and social structures of organizations
(Dulebohn et al., 1995; Scarpello, 2008). In the 1950s, the Human
Relations movement in the field of HRM challenged the assumption
that people did not want to work , and it stressed that human resources
made important contributions to organizations. As a result, the term
“personnel management” was replaced with the label “human resource
management”, which emphasized that human resources were assets to
organizations. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Human Relations approach
evolved into the Quality of Work Life (QWL) era. This approach
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
attempted to satisfy the interests of employees and organizations by
stressing both employee well-being and productivity. For example,
management developed new programs that underscored job
enrichment and career development; in addition, new policies were
designed to improve workers' quality of work life in order to enhance
their satisfaction and commitment to organizations. During this era,
managers also developed programs that focused on labor-management
cooperation and promoted collaborative efforts to improve workers'
quality of work life. The QWL era was facilitated by legislation that
highlighted fair employment practices including Civil Rights Acts
(1964), Occupational Safety and Health Act (1970), and Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974). The passage of these acts,
and the development of new QWL programs, promoted the need for
professional Human Resource managers and new forms of HRM
policies and practices in organizations.
“Strategic HRM”: 1980s to present
All of these above-mentioned changes and challenges prompted the
development of a “new” HRM function (Kochan, Katz, & McKersie,
1986). This new function is much more of a strategic partner in
organizations due to the recognition that human resources are critical
to the functioning of organizations in the service and knowledge
economies. In addition, the late 20th century saw an increased reliance
on employee-relations, and HRM was called on to foster a sense of
trust in the relations between managers and workers (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). American organizations began to stress non-unionized HRM
practices and to adopt many of the Japanese management principles
that emphasized employees as critical resources that can give
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
organizations a competitive advantage. As a result, HRM has evolved
from a “personnel” function to a human relations, then labor relations,
then industrial relations, and most recently strategic HRM function. In
the articles that follow, this evolution of the field is further articulated
in terms of both general and specific events. To set the stage for
examining our roots, Kaufman (2014-in this issue) traces the
development of HRM from the labor problem that surfaced in the 19th
century to the multifaceted strategic HRM/industrial
relations/personnel economics nature of the field today. Similarly De
Nisi, Wilson and Bite man (2014in this issue) review the history of
HRM throughout the 20th century but focus on how this evolution of
the field is characterized in terms of the HR research —practice gap.
In an interesting twist, Boudreau and Lawler (2014-in this issue) trace
the evolution of the field from a perceptual rather than historical
perspective. Based on survey data from HR leaders spanning two
decades, they share their findings regarding the changing role of HRM
based on the evolution of perceptions regarding the progress of the
field of HRM. The next two articles focus on specific issues/problems
that are fundamental to the evolution of our field. Nkomo and Hoobler
(2014-in this issue) explain the shift in HRM with respect to our
societal and thus organizational ideologies regarding “diversity” .As a
nation, we've evolved from a “white supremacy” view of diversity that
characterized the early 20th century to an “inclusion” orientation that
emerged in the early 21st century. Gowan (2014-in this issue) focuses
on the history of unemployment research and how we, as a field, have
evolved from a job-loss research focus to a stress focus to, more
recently, a career growth focus. The last article is relevant to our
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
current reincarnation as a “strategic partner” in organizations today.
Sikora & Ferris (2014-in this issue) propose that the real issue facing
strategic HRM is HR implementation. Using social context factors,
they explain how the success of HRM is not a matter of “strategy” but
rather a focus on the line managers responsible for implementing
those HR strategies .Notably this article focuses on the current
challenges facing the field, which is a nice segue for the second
volume of our special issue which will focus more so on HRM in
terms of the present and future. It is our hope that these special issues
will foster additional research onthe fundamentals of HRM and lead to
a better understanding of the significance and contributions of the
field as a whole.
“Early beginnings”: 1400s–1700s
Historically, HRM probably was the earliest evolved management
function, predating other functions such as finance,accounting, and
marketing. Although unrecorded, the actual managing of human
resources doubtless has occurred since the first organization of people
into functioning units such as tribes. As tribes formed and,
particularly, as they evolved from hunting and then farming, a division
of labor undoubtedly arose with recognition of differing productivity
of individuals. This development was a form of division of labor in
which different persons occupied different roles in the productive
society. Craftspersons who could develop tools for farmers and be
supported by the productivity of others engaged in farming doubtless
emerged, and a natural division of labor arose. In short, the
productivity of various crafts and occupations varied, and trade
evolved to takeadvantage of these variations. Whether managed
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
through the natural functioning of a market and a market allocation
ofproductive roles, or the human resource management of a tribal
leader, the issues of managing human resources emerged. In the late
18th century the Industrial revolution began in Europe and spread to
the U.S. This revolution completely changed the way that individuals
earned a living, and led to a shift from an agricultural to an industrial
or manufacturing society. Human skills and craftwork were replaced
with machines, and the factory system was born (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). Factories and manufacturing greatly improved production, and
altered employment relationships. For instance, these systems
replaced the self-employment independent contractor system and
created permanent wage earners who were employed by
organizations. At the same time, it resulted in the rationalization of
work and another division of labor. Workers who had been skilled
contractors became the tenders of machines and performed highly
specialized routine tasks. The new manufacturing system also created
the need to supervise large numbers of workers, and management
practices tended to be autocratic and paternalistic (Dulebohn et
al.,1995). Management expressed little concern for the safety or
welfare of workers, and workers were controlled with force and fear
(Slichter, 1919). This approach to management continued until the end
of the 19th century.
“Personnel”: 1800s
Around 1800, an English factory owner named Robert Owens altered
a number of aspects of the employment relationship and developed
“welfare to work”systems in order to improve both social and working
conditions for workers (Dulebohn et al., 1995).In particular, he taught
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
that his workers' temperance and cleanliness improved working
conditions, and refused to employ young children ( Davis, 1957). In
some cases, these practices evolved into more elaborate paternalistic
systems where workers were provided with company housing,
company stores, company schools,
apprenticeships, pensions, life and accident insurance, hospitals, and
libraries (Davis, 1957). Welfareto-work systems can be defined as
“anything for the comfort and improvement, intellectual or social, of
the employees, over and above wages paid, which is not a necessity of
the industry or required by law” (U.S. Bureau of Labor, 1919, p. 8).
These new systems were designed to promote good management and
worker relations, increase productivity, and avert worker conflict and
unionization ( Dulebohn et al., 1995). Not surprisingly, these practices
set the stage for many of the employee benefits that are used to attract,
motivate, and retain workers today. They have also become the norm
for many benefit systems in Western nations. In the era following the
civil war (1860s), labormanagement disputes began to occur.
Employers wanted to thwart unions and believed that changes in
working conditions would enhance performance (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). As a result, welfare-towork programs escalated, but these
programs were actually designed to benefit businesses not workers. As
these programs grew in scope in the late 1800s, organizations hired
welfare secretaries to administer them, and eventually the role of
welfare secretary evolved into the employment manager and, at a later
point in time, the “personnel manager”. The primary functions of this
role were to hire, fire, discipline, and reward employees, which meant
that line managers no longer had to focus on managing and retaining
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
the workforce. Many organizations began to enact paternalistic
practices, but some employers were mistreating employees, which led
crafts workers and others to join protection societies later known as
labor unions (Scarpello, 2008). As might be expected ,employers
fought the growth of unions and took a number of steps to curtail
unionization, including court injunctions or forcing applicants to sign
yellow dog contracts indicating that they would not join a union.
“Labor relations/human relations”: 1900s–1970s
With the advent of manufacturing, employers sought ways of
enhancing efficiency and productivity. Engineers (e.g., Frederick
Taylor), Industrial and Organizational Psychologists (e.g., Lillian
Gilbreath), sociologists (e.g., Max Weber), and Management scholars
(e.g., Heny Fayol) focused on strategies for enhancing organizational
efficiency, and developed new approaches to managing workers. For
instance, the Scientific Management approach fostered by Frederick
Taylor (1947) emphasized the rationalization of work by studying the
job scientifically, breaking it down into components, and determining
the one best way to perform the job. This approach diminished worker
autonomy and stressed that employees should be supervised closely to
ensure that they performed the job exactly as expected. At the same
time Max Weber (1927) suggested that organizational efficiency could
be improved by using legitimate rules and authority systems. The new
design of jobs and the resultant autocratic management systems
spawned even greater levels of conflict between workers and
organizations. In the 1930s the National Labor Relations Act, the
Norris-LaGuardia Act (1932), the Wagner Act (1935), and other laws
led to the growth of unions. As a result of increased unionization and
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
use of scientific management principles, personnel departments grew
and focused on job analysis as the basis for employee selection,
training, job evaluation, and compensation. In addition, The Wagner
Act defined the New Deal industrial relations system and “declared
that the goal of public policy was to encourage the practice of
collective bargaining, to eliminate labor's inequality of bargaining
power, and introduce democratic rights of due process to
industry”(Kaufman, 1993, p. 61). In view of these policies, industrial
relations (IR) departments emerged in organizations in order to
manage collective bargaining agreements (Dulebohn et al., 1995).
World War II created an exceptional demand for labor and slowed
temporarily the growth of unions (Dulebohn et al., 1995) .The war
brought wage freezes and prohibited strikes, but following the war
there was an increased need for HRM. The post-war era brought
renewed interest in unions, and workers were determined to recover
their lost wage increases. In addition, federal labor laws and wage
controls created an increased demand for personnel departments. In
addition, the growing power of unions and labor unrest resulted in the
passage of the Taft Hartley Act. The act was designed to equalize
power between labor and management. During the 1940s and 1950s,
unions represented 47% of the U. S. labor force, and 95% of
companies had at least one union (Dulebohn et al., 1995). At the same
time, employers began to hire more educated personnel managers
because of the constraints posed by unions and the need to manage
unionized workforces. In the 1930s, employment managers began to
argue that conflict was not inherent in labor relations, but was caused
by poor management and work systems. As a result, researchers
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
conducted a series of experiments to examine the effects of different
work systems on worker productivity (Roethlisberger & Dickson,
1939). These researchers found that the social elements and workers'
needs had an important impact on the output and workers' well-being.
This new approach was labeled the Human Relations movement, and
emphasized that workers have social needs. The Human Relations
approach broadened the view of HRM beyond the individual and the
job, and stressed the work group and social structures of organizations
(Dulebohn et al., 1995; Scarpello, 2008). In the 1950s, the Human
Relations movement in the field of HRM challenged the assumption
that people did not want to work , and it stressed that human resources
made important contributions to organizations. As a result, the term
“personnel management” was replaced with the label “human resource
management”, which emphasized that human resources were assets to
organizations. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Human Relations approach
evolved into the Quality of Work Life (QWL) era. This approach
attempted to satisfy the interests of employees and organizations by
stressing both employee well-being and productivity. For example,
management developed new programs that underscored job
enrichment and career development; in addition, new policies were
designed to improve workers' quality of work life in order to enhance
their satisfaction and commitment to organizations. During this era,
managers also developed programs that focused on labor-management
cooperation and promoted collaborative efforts to improve workers'
quality of work life. The QWL era was facilitated by legislation that
highlighted fair employment practices including Civil Rights Acts
(1964), Occupational Safety and Health Act (1970), and Employee
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974). The passage of these acts,
and the development of new QWL programs, promoted the need for
professional Human Resource managers and new forms of HRM
policies and practices in organizations.
“Strategic HRM”: 1980s to present
All of these above-mentioned changes and challenges prompted the
development of a “new” HRM function (Kochan, Katz, & McKersie,
1986). This new function is much more of a strategic partner in
organizations due to the recognition that human resources are critical
to the functioning of organizations in the service and knowledge
economies. In addition, the late 20th century saw an increased reliance
on employee-relations, and HRM was called on to foster a sense of
trust in the relations between managers and workers (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). American organizations began to stress non-unionized HRM
practices and to adopt many of the Japanese management principles
that emphasized employees as critical resources that can give
organizations a competitive advantage. As a result, HRM has evolved
from a “personnel” function to a human relations, then labor relations,
then industrial relations, and most recently strategic HRM function. In
the articles that follow, this evolution of the field is further articulated
in terms of both general and specific events. To set the stage for
examining our roots, Kaufman (2014-in this issue) traces the
development of HRM from the labor problem that surfaced in the 19th
century to the multifaceted strategic HRM/industrial
relations/personnel economics nature of the field today. Similarly De
Nisi, Wilson and Bite man (2014in this issue) review the history of
HRM throughout the 20th century but focus on how this evolution of
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
the field is characterized in terms of the HR research —practice gap.
In an interesting twist, Boudreau and Lawler (2014-in this issue) trace
the evolution of the field from a perceptual rather than historical
perspective. Based on survey data from HR leaders spanning two
decades, they share their findings regarding the changing role of HRM
based on the evolution of perceptions regarding the progress of the
field of HRM. The next two articles focus on specific issues/problems
that are fundamental to the evolution of our field. Nkomo and Hoobler
(2014-in this issue) explain the shift in HRM with respect to our
societal and thus organizational ideologies regarding “diversity” .As a
nation, we've evolved from a “white supremacy” view of diversity that
characterized the early 20th century to an “inclusion” orientation that
emerged in the early 21st century. Gowan (2014-in this issue) focuses
on the history of unemployment research and how we, as a field, have
evolved from a job-loss research focus to a stress focus to, more
recently, a career growth focus. The last article is relevant to our
current reincarnation as a “strategic partner” in organizations today.
Sikora & Ferris (2014-in this issue) propose that the real issue facing
strategic HRM is HR implementation. Using social context factors,
they explain how the success of HRM is not a matter of “strategy” but
rather a focus on the line managers responsible for implementing
those HR strategies .Notably this article focuses on the current
challenges facing the field, which is a nice segue for the second
volume of our special issue which will focus more so on HRM in
terms of the present and future. It is our hope that these special issues
will foster additional research onthe fundamentals of HRM and lead to
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
a better understanding of the significance and contributions of the
field as a whole.
“Early beginnings”: 1400s–1700s
Historically, HRM probably was the earliest evolved management
function, predating other functions such as finance,accounting, and
marketing. Although unrecorded, the actual managing of human
resources doubtless has occurred since the first organization of people
into functioning units such as tribes. As tribes formed and,
particularly, as they evolved from hunting and then farming, a division
of labor undoubtedly arose with recognition of differing productivity
of individuals. This development was a form of division of labor in
which different persons occupied different roles in the productive
society. Craftspersons who could develop tools for farmers and be
supported by the productivity of others engaged in farming doubtless
emerged, and a natural division of labor arose. In short, the
productivity of various crafts and occupations varied, and trade
evolved to takeadvantage of these variations. Whether managed
through the natural functioning of a market and a market allocation
ofproductive roles, or the human resource management of a tribal
leader, the issues of managing human resources emerged. In the late
18th century the Industrial revolution began in Europe and spread to
the U.S. This revolution completely changed the way that individuals
earned a living, and led to a shift from an agricultural to an industrial
or manufacturing society. Human skills and craftwork were replaced
with machines, and the factory system was born (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). Factories and manufacturing greatly improved production, and
altered employment relationships. For instance, these systems
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
replaced the self-employment independent contractor system and
created permanent wage earners who were employed by
organizations. At the same time, it resulted in the rationalization of
work and another division of labor. Workers who had been skilled
contractors became the tenders of machines and performed highly
specialized routine tasks. The new manufacturing system also created
the need to supervise large numbers of workers, and management
practices tended to be autocratic and paternalistic (Dulebohn et
al.,1995). Management expressed little concern for the safety or
welfare of workers, and workers were controlled with force and fear
(Slichter, 1919). This approach to management continued until the end
of the 19th century.
“Personnel”: 1800s
Around 1800, an English factory owner named Robert Owens altered
a number of aspects of the employment relationship and developed
“welfare to work”systems in order to improve both social and working
conditions for workers (Dulebohn et al., 1995).In particular, he taught
that his workers' temperance and cleanliness improved working
conditions, and refused to employ young children ( Davis, 1957). In
some cases, these practices evolved into more elaborate paternalistic
systems where workers were provided with company housing,
company stores, company schools,
apprenticeships, pensions, life and accident insurance, hospitals, and
libraries (Davis, 1957). Welfareto-work systems can be defined as
“anything for the comfort and improvement, intellectual or social, of
the employees, over and above wages paid, which is not a necessity of
the industry or required by law” (U.S. Bureau of Labor, 1919, p. 8).
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
These new systems were designed to promote good management and
worker relations, increase productivity, and avert worker conflict and
unionization ( Dulebohn et al., 1995). Not surprisingly, these practices
set the stage for many of the employee benefits that are used to attract,
motivate, and retain workers today. They have also become the norm
for many benefit systems in Western nations. In the era following the
civil war (1860s), labormanagement disputes began to occur.
Employers wanted to thwart unions and believed that changes in
working conditions would enhance performance (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). As a result, welfare-towork programs escalated, but these
programs were actually designed to benefit businesses not workers. As
these programs grew in scope in the late 1800s, organizations hired
welfare secretaries to administer them, and eventually the role of
welfare secretary evolved into the employment manager and, at a later
point in time, the “personnel manager”. The primary functions of this
role were to hire, fire, discipline, and reward employees, which meant
that line managers no longer had to focus on managing and retaining
the workforce. Many organizations began to enact paternalistic
practices, but some employers were mistreating employees, which led
crafts workers and others to join protection societies later known as
labor unions (Scarpello, 2008). As might be expected ,employers
fought the growth of unions and took a number of steps to curtail
unionization, including court injunctions or forcing applicants to sign
yellow dog contracts indicating that they would not join a union.
“Labor relations/human relations”: 1900s–1970s
With the advent of manufacturing, employers sought ways of
enhancing efficiency and productivity. Engineers (e.g., Frederick
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
Taylor), Industrial and Organizational Psychologists (e.g., Lillian
Gilbreath), sociologists (e.g., Max Weber), and Management scholars
(e.g., Heny Fayol) focused on strategies for enhancing organizational
efficiency, and developed new approaches to managing workers. For
instance, the Scientific Management approach fostered by Frederick
Taylor (1947) emphasized the rationalization of work by studying the
job scientifically, breaking it down into components, and determining
the one best way to perform the job. This approach diminished worker
autonomy and stressed that employees should be supervised closely to
ensure that they performed the job exactly as expected. At the same
time Max Weber (1927) suggested that organizational efficiency could
be improved by using legitimate rules and authority systems. The new
design of jobs and the resultant autocratic management systems
spawned even greater levels of conflict between workers and
organizations. In the 1930s the National Labor Relations Act, the
Norris-LaGuardia Act (1932), the Wagner Act (1935), and other laws
led to the growth of unions. As a result of increased unionization and
use of scientific management principles, personnel departments grew
and focused on job analysis as the basis for employee selection,
training, job evaluation, and compensation. In addition, The Wagner
Act defined the New Deal industrial relations system and “declared
that the goal of public policy was to encourage the practice of
collective bargaining, to eliminate labor's inequality of bargaining
power, and introduce democratic rights of due process to
industry”(Kaufman, 1993, p. 61). In view of these policies, industrial
relations (IR) departments emerged in organizations in order to
manage collective bargaining agreements (Dulebohn et al., 1995).
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
World War II created an exceptional demand for labor and slowed
temporarily the growth of unions (Dulebohn et al., 1995) .The war
brought wage freezes and prohibited strikes, but following the war
there was an increased need for HRM. The post-war era brought
renewed interest in unions, and workers were determined to recover
their lost wage increases. In addition, federal labor laws and wage
controls created an increased demand for personnel departments. In
addition, the growing power of unions and labor unrest resulted in the
passage of the Taft Hartley Act. The act was designed to equalize
power between labor and management. During the 1940s and 1950s,
unions represented 47% of the U. S. labor force, and 95% of
companies had at least one union (Dulebohn et al., 1995). At the same
time, employers began to hire more educated personnel managers
because of the constraints posed by unions and the need to manage
unionized workforces. In the 1930s, employment managers began to
argue that conflict was not inherent in labor relations, but was caused
by poor management and work systems. As a result, researchers
conducted a series of experiments to examine the effects of different
work systems on worker productivity (Roethlisberger & Dickson,
1939). These researchers found that the social elements and workers'
needs had an important impact on the output and workers' well-being.
This new approach was labeled the Human Relations movement, and
emphasized that workers have social needs. The Human Relations
approach broadened the view of HRM beyond the individual and the
job, and stressed the work group and social structures of organizations
(Dulebohn et al., 1995; Scarpello, 2008). In the 1950s, the Human
Relations movement in the field of HRM challenged the assumption
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
that people did not want to work , and it stressed that human resources
made important contributions to organizations. As a result, the term
“personnel management” was replaced with the label “human resource
management”, which emphasized that human resources were assets to
organizations. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Human Relations approach
evolved into the Quality of Work Life (QWL) era. This approach
attempted to satisfy the interests of employees and organizations by
stressing both employee well-being and productivity. For example,
management developed new programs that underscored job
enrichment and career development; in addition, new policies were
designed to improve workers' quality of work life in order to enhance
their satisfaction and commitment to organizations. During this era,
managers also developed programs that focused on labor-management
cooperation and promoted collaborative efforts to improve workers'
quality of work life. The QWL era was facilitated by legislation that
highlighted fair employment practices including Civil Rights Acts
(1964), Occupational Safety and Health Act (1970), and Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974). The passage of these acts,
and the development of new QWL programs, promoted the need for
professional Human Resource managers and new forms of HRM
policies and practices in organizations.
“Strategic HRM”: 1980s to present
All of these above-mentioned changes and challenges prompted the
development of a “new” HRM function (Kochan, Katz, & McKersie,
1986). This new function is much more of a strategic partner in
organizations due to the recognition that human resources are critical
to the functioning of organizations in the service and knowledge
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
economies. In addition, the late 20th century saw an increased reliance
on employee-relations, and HRM was called on to foster a sense of
trust in the relations between managers and workers (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). American organizations began to stress non-unionized HRM
practices and to adopt many of the Japanese management principles
that emphasized employees as critical resources that can give
organizations a competitive advantage. As a result, HRM has evolved
from a “personnel” function to a human relations, then labor relations,
then industrial relations, and most recently strategic HRM function. In
the articles that follow, this evolution of the field is further articulated
in terms of both general and specific events. To set the stage for
examining our roots, Kaufman (2014-in this issue) traces the
development of HRM from the labor problem that surfaced in the 19th
century to the multifaceted strategic HRM/industrial
relations/personnel economics nature of the field today. Similarly De
Nisi, Wilson and Bite man (2014in this issue) review the history of
HRM throughout the 20th century but focus on how this evolution of
the field is characterized in terms of the HR research —practice gap.
In an interesting twist, Boudreau and Lawler (2014-in this issue) trace
the evolution of the field from a perceptual rather than historical
perspective. Based on survey data from HR leaders spanning two
decades, they share their findings regarding the changing role of HRM
based on the evolution of perceptions regarding the progress of the
field of HRM. The next two articles focus on specific issues/problems
that are fundamental to the evolution of our field. Nkomo and Hoobler
(2014-in this issue) explain the shift in HRM with respect to our
societal and thus organizational ideologies regarding “diversity” .As a
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
nation, we've evolved from a “white supremacy” view of diversity that
characterized the early 20th century to an “inclusion” orientation that
emerged in the early 21st century. Gowan (2014-in this issue) focuses
on the history of unemployment research and how we, as a field, have
evolved from a job-loss research focus to a stress focus to, more
recently, a career growth focus. The last article is relevant to our
current reincarnation as a “strategic partner” in organizations today.
Sikora & Ferris (2014-in this issue) propose that the real issue facing
strategic HRM is HR implementation. Using social context factors,
they explain how the success of HRM is not a matter of “strategy” but
rather a focus on the line managers responsible for implementing
those HR strategies .Notably this article focuses on the current
challenges facing the field, which is a nice segue for the second
volume of our special issue which will focus more so on HRM in
terms of the present and future. It is our hope that these special issues
will foster additional research onthe fundamentals of HRM and lead to
a better understanding of the significance and contributions of the
field as a whole.
“Early beginnings”: 1400s–1700s
Historically, HRM probably was the earliest evolved management
function, predating other functions such as finance,accounting, and
marketing. Although unrecorded, the actual managing of human
resources doubtless has occurred since the first organization of people
into functioning units such as tribes. As tribes formed and,
particularly, as they evolved from hunting and then farming, a division
of labor undoubtedly arose with recognition of differing productivity
of individuals. This development was a form of division of labor in
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
which different persons occupied different roles in the productive
society. Craftspersons who could develop tools for farmers and be
supported by the productivity of others engaged in farming doubtless
emerged, and a natural division of labor arose. In short, the
productivity of various crafts and occupations varied, and trade
evolved to takeadvantage of these variations. Whether managed
through the natural functioning of a market and a market allocation
ofproductive roles, or the human resource management of a tribal
leader, the issues of managing human resources emerged. In the late
18th century the Industrial revolution began in Europe and spread to
the U.S. This revolution completely changed the way that individuals
earned a living, and led to a shift from an agricultural to an industrial
or manufacturing society. Human skills and craftwork were replaced
with machines, and the factory system was born (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). Factories and manufacturing greatly improved production, and
altered employment relationships. For instance, these systems
replaced the self-employment independent contractor system and
created permanent wage earners who were employed by
organizations. At the same time, it resulted in the rationalization of
work and another division of labor. Workers who had been skilled
contractors became the tenders of machines and performed highly
specialized routine tasks. The new manufacturing system also created
the need to supervise large numbers of workers, and management
practices tended to be autocratic and paternalistic (Dulebohn et
al.,1995). Management expressed little concern for the safety or
welfare of workers, and workers were controlled with force and fear
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
(Slichter, 1919). This approach to management continued until the end
of the 19th century.
“Personnel”: 1800s
Around 1800, an English factory owner named Robert Owens altered
a number of aspects of the employment relationship and developed
“welfare to work”systems in order to improve both social and working
conditions for workers (Dulebohn et al., 1995).In particular, he taught
that his workers' temperance and cleanliness improved working
conditions, and refused to employ young children ( Davis, 1957). In
some cases, these practices evolved into more elaborate paternalistic
systems where workers were provided with company housing,
company stores, company schools,
apprenticeships, pensions, life and accident insurance, hospitals, and
libraries (Davis, 1957). Welfareto-work systems can be defined as
“anything for the comfort and improvement, intellectual or social, of
the employees, over and above wages paid, which is not a necessity of
the industry or required by law” (U.S. Bureau of Labor, 1919, p. 8).
These new systems were designed to promote good management and
worker relations, increase productivity, and avert worker conflict and
unionization ( Dulebohn et al., 1995). Not surprisingly, these practices
set the stage for many of the employee benefits that are used to attract,
motivate, and retain workers today. They have also become the norm
for many benefit systems in Western nations. In the era following the
civil war (1860s), labormanagement disputes began to occur.
Employers wanted to thwart unions and believed that changes in
working conditions would enhance performance (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). As a result, welfare-towork programs escalated, but these
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
programs were actually designed to benefit businesses not workers. As
these programs grew in scope in the late 1800s, organizations hired
welfare secretaries to administer them, and eventually the role of
welfare secretary evolved into the employment manager and, at a later
point in time, the “personnel manager”. The primary functions of this
role were to hire, fire, discipline, and reward employees, which meant
that line managers no longer had to focus on managing and retaining
the workforce. Many organizations began to enact paternalistic
practices, but some employers were mistreating employees, which led
crafts workers and others to join protection societies later known as
labor unions (Scarpello, 2008). As might be expected ,employers
fought the growth of unions and took a number of steps to curtail
unionization, including court injunctions or forcing applicants to sign
yellow dog contracts indicating that they would not join a union.
“Labor relations/human relations”: 1900s–1970s
With the advent of manufacturing, employers sought ways of
enhancing efficiency and productivity. Engineers (e.g., Frederick
Taylor), Industrial and Organizational Psychologists (e.g., Lillian
Gilbreath), sociologists (e.g., Max Weber), and Management scholars
(e.g., Heny Fayol) focused on strategies for enhancing organizational
efficiency, and developed new approaches to managing workers. For
instance, the Scientific Management approach fostered by Frederick
Taylor (1947) emphasized the rationalization of work by studying the
job scientifically, breaking it down into components, and determining
the one best way to perform the job. This approach diminished worker
autonomy and stressed that employees should be supervised closely to
ensure that they performed the job exactly as expected. At the same
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
time Max Weber (1927) suggested that organizational efficiency could
be improved by using legitimate rules and authority systems. The new
design of jobs and the resultant autocratic management systems
spawned even greater levels of conflict between workers and
organizations. In the 1930s the National Labor Relations Act, the
Norris-LaGuardia Act (1932), the Wagner Act (1935), and other laws
led to the growth of unions. As a result of increased unionization and
use of scientific management principles, personnel departments grew
and focused on job analysis as the basis for employee selection,
training, job evaluation, and compensation. In addition, The Wagner
Act defined the New Deal industrial relations system and “declared
that the goal of public policy was to encourage the practice of
collective bargaining, to eliminate labor's inequality of bargaining
power, and introduce democratic rights of due process to
industry”(Kaufman, 1993, p. 61). In view of these policies, industrial
relations (IR) departments emerged in organizations in order to
manage collective bargaining agreements (Dulebohn et al., 1995).
World War II created an exceptional demand for labor and slowed
temporarily the growth of unions (Dulebohn et al., 1995) .The war
brought wage freezes and prohibited strikes, but following the war
there was an increased need for HRM. The post-war era brought
renewed interest in unions, and workers were determined to recover
their lost wage increases. In addition, federal labor laws and wage
controls created an increased demand for personnel departments. In
addition, the growing power of unions and labor unrest resulted in the
passage of the Taft Hartley Act. The act was designed to equalize
power between labor and management. During the 1940s and 1950s,
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
unions represented 47% of the U. S. labor force, and 95% of
companies had at least one union (Dulebohn et al., 1995). At the same
time, employers began to hire more educated personnel managers
because of the constraints posed by unions and the need to manage
unionized workforces. In the 1930s, employment managers began to
argue that conflict was not inherent in labor relations, but was caused
by poor management and work systems. As a result, researchers
conducted a series of experiments to examine the effects of different
work systems on worker productivity (Roethlisberger & Dickson,
1939). These researchers found that the social elements and workers'
needs had an important impact on the output and workers' well-being.
This new approach was labeled the Human Relations movement, and
emphasized that workers have social needs. The Human Relations
approach broadened the view of HRM beyond the individual and the
job, and stressed the work group and social structures of organizations
(Dulebohn et al., 1995; Scarpello, 2008). In the 1950s, the Human
Relations movement in the field of HRM challenged the assumption
that people did not want to work , and it stressed that human resources
made important contributions to organizations. As a result, the term
“personnel management” was replaced with the label “human resource
management”, which emphasized that human resources were assets to
organizations. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Human Relations approach
evolved into the Quality of Work Life (QWL) era. This approach
attempted to satisfy the interests of employees and organizations by
stressing both employee well-being and productivity. For example,
management developed new programs that underscored job
enrichment and career development; in addition, new policies were
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
designed to improve workers' quality of work life in order to enhance
their satisfaction and commitment to organizations. During this era,
managers also developed programs that focused on labor-management
cooperation and promoted collaborative efforts to improve workers'
quality of work life. The QWL era was facilitated by legislation that
highlighted fair employment practices including Civil Rights Acts
(1964), Occupational Safety and Health Act (1970), and Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974). The passage of these acts,
and the development of new QWL programs, promoted the need for
professional Human Resource managers and new forms of HRM
policies and practices in organizations.
“Strategic HRM”: 1980s to present
All of these above-mentioned changes and challenges prompted the
development of a “new” HRM function (Kochan, Katz, & McKersie,
1986). This new function is much more of a strategic partner in
organizations due to the recognition that human resources are critical
to the functioning of organizations in the service and knowledge
economies. In addition, the late 20th century saw an increased reliance
on employee-relations, and HRM was called on to foster a sense of
trust in the relations between managers and workers (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). American organizations began to stress non-unionized HRM
practices and to adopt many of the Japanese management principles
that emphasized employees as critical resources that can give
organizations a competitive advantage. As a result, HRM has evolved
from a “personnel” function to a human relations, then labor relations,
then industrial relations, and most recently strategic HRM function. In
the articles that follow, this evolution of the field is further articulated
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
in terms of both general and specific events. To set the stage for
examining our roots, Kaufman (2014-in this issue) traces the
development of HRM from the labor problem that surfaced in the 19th
century to the multifaceted strategic HRM/industrial
relations/personnel economics nature of the field today. Similarly De
Nisi, Wilson and Bite man (2014in this issue) review the history of
HRM throughout the 20th century but focus on how this evolution of
the field is characterized in terms of the HR research —practice gap.
In an interesting twist, Boudreau and Lawler (2014-in this issue) trace
the evolution of the field from a perceptual rather than historical
perspective. Based on survey data from HR leaders spanning two
decades, they share their findings regarding the changing role of HRM
based on the evolution of perceptions regarding the progress of the
field of HRM. The next two articles focus on specific issues/problems
that are fundamental to the evolution of our field. Nkomo and Hoobler
(2014-in this issue) explain the shift in HRM with respect to our
societal and thus organizational ideologies regarding “diversity” .As a
nation, we've evolved from a “white supremacy” view of diversity that
characterized the early 20th century to an “inclusion” orientation that
emerged in the early 21st century. Gowan (2014-in this issue) focuses
on the history of unemployment research and how we, as a field, have
evolved from a job-loss research focus to a stress focus to, more
recently, a career growth focus. The last article is relevant to our
current reincarnation as a “strategic partner” in organizations today.
Sikora & Ferris (2014-in this issue) propose that the real issue facing
strategic HRM is HR implementation. Using social context factors,
they explain how the success of HRM is not a matter of “strategy” but
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
rather a focus on the line managers responsible for implementing
those HR strategies .Notably this article focuses on the current
challenges facing the field, which is a nice segue for the second
volume of our special issue which will focus more so on HRM in
terms of the present and future. It is our hope that these special issues
will foster additional research onthe fundamentals of HRM and lead to
a better understanding of the significance and contributions of the
field as a whole.
“Early beginnings”: 1400s–1700s
Historically, HRM probably was the earliest evolved management
function, predating other functions such as finance,accounting, and
marketing. Although unrecorded, the actual managing of human
resources doubtless has occurred since the first organization of people
into functioning units such as tribes. As tribes formed and,
particularly, as they evolved from hunting and then farming, a division
of labor undoubtedly arose with recognition of differing productivity
of individuals. This development was a form of division of labor in
which different persons occupied different roles in the productive
society. Craftspersons who could develop tools for farmers and be
supported by the productivity of others engaged in farming doubtless
emerged, and a natural division of labor arose. In short, the
productivity of various crafts and occupations varied, and trade
evolved to takeadvantage of these variations. Whether managed
through the natural functioning of a market and a market allocation
ofproductive roles, or the human resource management of a tribal
leader, the issues of managing human resources emerged. In the late
18th century the Industrial revolution began in Europe and spread to
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
the U.S. This revolution completely changed the way that individuals
earned a living, and led to a shift from an agricultural to an industrial
or manufacturing society. Human skills and craftwork were replaced
with machines, and the factory system was born (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). Factories and manufacturing greatly improved production, and
altered employment relationships. For instance, these systems
replaced the self-employment independent contractor system and
created permanent wage earners who were employed by
organizations. At the same time, it resulted in the rationalization of
work and another division of labor. Workers who had been skilled
contractors became the tenders of machines and performed highly
specialized routine tasks. The new manufacturing system also created
the need to supervise large numbers of workers, and management
practices tended to be autocratic and paternalistic (Dulebohn et
al.,1995). Management expressed little concern for the safety or
welfare of workers, and workers were controlled with force and fear
(Slichter, 1919). This approach to management continued until the end
of the 19th century.
“Personnel”: 1800s
Around 1800, an English factory owner named Robert Owens altered
a number of aspects of the employment relationship and developed
“welfare to work”systems in order to improve both social and working
conditions for workers (Dulebohn et al., 1995).In particular, he taught
that his workers' temperance and cleanliness improved working
conditions, and refused to employ young children ( Davis, 1957). In
some cases, these practices evolved into more elaborate paternalistic
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
systems where workers were provided with company housing,
company stores, company schools,
apprenticeships, pensions, life and accident insurance, hospitals, and
libraries (Davis, 1957). Welfareto-work systems can be defined as
“anything for the comfort and improvement, intellectual or social, of
the employees, over and above wages paid, which is not a necessity of
the industry or required by law” (U.S. Bureau of Labor, 1919, p. 8).
These new systems were designed to promote good management and
worker relations, increase productivity, and avert worker conflict and
unionization ( Dulebohn et al., 1995). Not surprisingly, these practices
set the stage for many of the employee benefits that are used to attract,
motivate, and retain workers today. They have also become the norm
for many benefit systems in Western nations. In the era following the
civil war (1860s), labormanagement disputes began to occur.
Employers wanted to thwart unions and believed that changes in
working conditions would enhance performance (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). As a result, welfare-towork programs escalated, but these
programs were actually designed to benefit businesses not workers. As
these programs grew in scope in the late 1800s, organizations hired
welfare secretaries to administer them, and eventually the role of
welfare secretary evolved into the employment manager and, at a later
point in time, the “personnel manager”. The primary functions of this
role were to hire, fire, discipline, and reward employees, which meant
that line managers no longer had to focus on managing and retaining
the workforce. Many organizations began to enact paternalistic
practices, but some employers were mistreating employees, which led
crafts workers and others to join protection societies later known as
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
labor unions (Scarpello, 2008). As might be expected ,employers
fought the growth of unions and took a number of steps to curtail
unionization, including court injunctions or forcing applicants to sign
yellow dog contracts indicating that they would not join a union.
“Labor relations/human relations”: 1900s–1970s
With the advent of manufacturing, employers sought ways of
enhancing efficiency and productivity. Engineers (e.g., Frederick
Taylor), Industrial and Organizational Psychologists (e.g., Lillian
Gilbreath), sociologists (e.g., Max Weber), and Management scholars
(e.g., Heny Fayol) focused on strategies for enhancing organizational
efficiency, and developed new approaches to managing workers. For
instance, the Scientific Management approach fostered by Frederick
Taylor (1947) emphasized the rationalization of work by studying the
job scientifically, breaking it down into components, and determining
the one best way to perform the job. This approach diminished worker
autonomy and stressed that employees should be supervised closely to
ensure that they performed the job exactly as expected. At the same
time Max Weber (1927) suggested that organizational efficiency could
be improved by using legitimate rules and authority systems. The new
design of jobs and the resultant autocratic management systems
spawned even greater levels of conflict between workers and
organizations. In the 1930s the National Labor Relations Act, the
Norris-LaGuardia Act (1932), the Wagner Act (1935), and other laws
led to the growth of unions. As a result of increased unionization and
use of scientific management principles, personnel departments grew
and focused on job analysis as the basis for employee selection,
training, job evaluation, and compensation. In addition, The Wagner
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
Act defined the New Deal industrial relations system and “declared
that the goal of public policy was to encourage the practice of
collective bargaining, to eliminate labor's inequality of bargaining
power, and introduce democratic rights of due process to
industry”(Kaufman, 1993, p. 61). In view of these policies, industrial
relations (IR) departments emerged in organizations in order to
manage collective bargaining agreements (Dulebohn et al., 1995).
World War II created an exceptional demand for labor and slowed
temporarily the growth of unions (Dulebohn et al., 1995) .The war
brought wage freezes and prohibited strikes, but following the war
there was an increased need for HRM. The post-war era brought
renewed interest in unions, and workers were determined to recover
their lost wage increases. In addition, federal labor laws and wage
controls created an increased demand for personnel departments. In
addition, the growing power of unions and labor unrest resulted in the
passage of the Taft Hartley Act. The act was designed to equalize
power between labor and management. During the 1940s and 1950s,
unions represented 47% of the U. S. labor force, and 95% of
companies had at least one union (Dulebohn et al., 1995). At the same
time, employers began to hire more educated personnel managers
because of the constraints posed by unions and the need to manage
unionized workforces. In the 1930s, employment managers began to
argue that conflict was not inherent in labor relations, but was caused
by poor management and work systems. As a result, researchers
conducted a series of experiments to examine the effects of different
work systems on worker productivity (Roethlisberger & Dickson,
1939). These researchers found that the social elements and workers'
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
needs had an important impact on the output and workers' well-being.
This new approach was labeled the Human Relations movement, and
emphasized that workers have social needs. The Human Relations
approach broadened the view of HRM beyond the individual and the
job, and stressed the work group and social structures of organizations
(Dulebohn et al., 1995; Scarpello, 2008). In the 1950s, the Human
Relations movement in the field of HRM challenged the assumption
that people did not want to work , and it stressed that human resources
made important contributions to organizations. As a result, the term
“personnel management” was replaced with the label “human resource
management”, which emphasized that human resources were assets to
organizations. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Human Relations approach
evolved into the Quality of Work Life (QWL) era. This approach
attempted to satisfy the interests of employees and organizations by
stressing both employee well-being and productivity. For example,
management developed new programs that underscored job
enrichment and career development; in addition, new policies were
designed to improve workers' quality of work life in order to enhance
their satisfaction and commitment to organizations. During this era,
managers also developed programs that focused on labor-management
cooperation and promoted collaborative efforts to improve workers'
quality of work life. The QWL era was facilitated by legislation that
highlighted fair employment practices including Civil Rights Acts
(1964), Occupational Safety and Health Act (1970), and Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974). The passage of these acts,
and the development of new QWL programs, promoted the need for
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
professional Human Resource managers and new forms of HRM
policies and practices in organizations.
“Strategic HRM”: 1980s to present
All of these above-mentioned changes and challenges prompted the
development of a “new” HRM function (Kochan, Katz, & McKersie,
1986). This new function is much more of a strategic partner in
organizations due to the recognition that human resources are critical
to the functioning of organizations in the service and knowledge
economies. In addition, the late 20th century saw an increased reliance
on employee-relations, and HRM was called on to foster a sense of
trust in the relations between managers and workers (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). American organizations began to stress non-unionized HRM
practices and to adopt many of the Japanese management principles
that emphasized employees as critical resources that can give
organizations a competitive advantage. As a result, HRM has evolved
from a “personnel” function to a human relations, then labor relations,
then industrial relations, and most recently strategic HRM function. In
the articles that follow, this evolution of the field is further articulated
in terms of both general and specific events. To set the stage for
examining our roots, Kaufman (2014-in this issue) traces the
development of HRM from the labor problem that surfaced in the 19th
century to the multifaceted strategic HRM/industrial
relations/personnel economics nature of the field today. Similarly De
Nisi, Wilson and Bite man (2014in this issue) review the history of
HRM throughout the 20th century but focus on how this evolution of
the field is characterized in terms of the HR research —practice gap.
In an interesting twist, Boudreau and Lawler (2014-in this issue) trace
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
the evolution of the field from a perceptual rather than historical
perspective. Based on survey data from HR leaders spanning two
decades, they share their findings regarding the changing role of HRM
based on the evolution of perceptions regarding the progress of the
field of HRM. The next two articles focus on specific issues/problems
that are fundamental to the evolution of our field. Nkomo and Hoobler
(2014-in this issue) explain the shift in HRM with respect to our
societal and thus organizational ideologies regarding “diversity” .As a
nation, we've evolved from a “white supremacy” view of diversity that
characterized the early 20th century to an “inclusion” orientation that
emerged in the early 21st century. Gowan (2014-in this issue) focuses
on the history of unemployment research and how we, as a field, have
evolved from a job-loss research focus to a stress focus to, more
recently, a career growth focus. The last article is relevant to our
current reincarnation as a “strategic partner” in organizations today.
Sikora & Ferris (2014-in this issue) propose that the real issue facing
strategic HRM is HR implementation. Using social context factors,
they explain how the success of HRM is not a matter of “strategy” but
rather a focus on the line managers responsible for implementing
those HR strategies .Notably this article focuses on the current
challenges facing the field, which is a nice segue for the second
volume of our special issue which will focus more so on HRM in
terms of the present and future. It is our hope that these special issues
will foster additional research onthe fundamentals of HRM and lead to
a better understanding of the significance and contributions of the
field as a whole.
“Early beginnings”: 1400s–1700s
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
Historically, HRM probably was the earliest evolved management
function, predating other functions such as finance,accounting, and
marketing. Although unrecorded, the actual managing of human
resources doubtless has occurred since the first organization of people
into functioning units such as tribes. As tribes formed and,
particularly, as they evolved from hunting and then farming, a division
of labor undoubtedly arose with recognition of differing productivity
of individuals. This development was a form of division of labor in
which different persons occupied different roles in the productive
society. Craftspersons who could develop tools for farmers and be
supported by the productivity of others engaged in farming doubtless
emerged, and a natural division of labor arose. In short, the
productivity of various crafts and occupations varied, and trade
evolved to takeadvantage of these variations. Whether managed
through the natural functioning of a market and a market allocation
ofproductive roles, or the human resource management of a tribal
leader, the issues of managing human resources emerged. In the late
18th century the Industrial revolution began in Europe and spread to
the U.S. This revolution completely changed the way that individuals
earned a living, and led to a shift from an agricultural to an industrial
or manufacturing society. Human skills and craftwork were replaced
with machines, and the factory system was born (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). Factories and manufacturing greatly improved production, and
altered employment relationships. For instance, these systems
replaced the self-employment independent contractor system and
created permanent wage earners who were employed by
organizations. At the same time, it resulted in the rationalization of
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
work and another division of labor. Workers who had been skilled
contractors became the tenders of machines and performed highly
specialized routine tasks. The new manufacturing system also created
the need to supervise large numbers of workers, and management
practices tended to be autocratic and paternalistic (Dulebohn et
al.,1995). Management expressed little concern for the safety or
welfare of workers, and workers were controlled with force and fear
(Slichter, 1919). This approach to management continued until the end
of the 19th century.
“Personnel”: 1800s
Around 1800, an English factory owner named Robert Owens altered
a number of aspects of the employment relationship and developed
“welfare to work”systems in order to improve both social and working
conditions for workers (Dulebohn et al., 1995).In particular, he taught
that his workers' temperance and cleanliness improved working
conditions, and refused to employ young children ( Davis, 1957). In
some cases, these practices evolved into more elaborate paternalistic
systems where workers were provided with company housing,
company stores, company schools,
apprenticeships, pensions, life and accident insurance, hospitals, and
libraries (Davis, 1957). Welfareto-work systems can be defined as
“anything for the comfort and improvement, intellectual or social, of
the employees, over and above wages paid, which is not a necessity of
the industry or required by law” (U.S. Bureau of Labor, 1919, p. 8).
These new systems were designed to promote good management and
worker relations, increase productivity, and avert worker conflict and
unionization ( Dulebohn et al., 1995). Not surprisingly, these practices
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
set the stage for many of the employee benefits that are used to attract,
motivate, and retain workers today. They have also become the norm
for many benefit systems in Western nations. In the era following the
civil war (1860s), labormanagement disputes began to occur.
Employers wanted to thwart unions and believed that changes in
working conditions would enhance performance (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). As a result, welfare-towork programs escalated, but these
programs were actually designed to benefit businesses not workers. As
these programs grew in scope in the late 1800s, organizations hired
welfare secretaries to administer them, and eventually the role of
welfare secretary evolved into the employment manager and, at a later
point in time, the “personnel manager”. The primary functions of this
role were to hire, fire, discipline, and reward employees, which meant
that line managers no longer had to focus on managing and retaining
the workforce. Many organizations began to enact paternalistic
practices, but some employers were mistreating employees, which led
crafts workers and others to join protection societies later known as
labor unions (Scarpello, 2008). As might be expected ,employers
fought the growth of unions and took a number of steps to curtail
unionization, including court injunctions or forcing applicants to sign
yellow dog contracts indicating that they would not join a union.
“Labor relations/human relations”: 1900s–1970s
With the advent of manufacturing, employers sought ways of
enhancing efficiency and productivity. Engineers (e.g., Frederick
Taylor), Industrial and Organizational Psychologists (e.g., Lillian
Gilbreath), sociologists (e.g., Max Weber), and Management scholars
(e.g., Heny Fayol) focused on strategies for enhancing organizational
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
efficiency, and developed new approaches to managing workers. For
instance, the Scientific Management approach fostered by Frederick
Taylor (1947) emphasized the rationalization of work by studying the
job scientifically, breaking it down into components, and determining
the one best way to perform the job. This approach diminished worker
autonomy and stressed that employees should be supervised closely to
ensure that they performed the job exactly as expected. At the same
time Max Weber (1927) suggested that organizational efficiency could
be improved by using legitimate rules and authority systems. The new
design of jobs and the resultant autocratic management systems
spawned even greater levels of conflict between workers and
organizations. In the 1930s the National Labor Relations Act, the
Norris-LaGuardia Act (1932), the Wagner Act (1935), and other laws
led to the growth of unions. As a result of increased unionization and
use of scientific management principles, personnel departments grew
and focused on job analysis as the basis for employee selection,
training, job evaluation, and compensation. In addition, The Wagner
Act defined the New Deal industrial relations system and “declared
that the goal of public policy was to encourage the practice of
collective bargaining, to eliminate labor's inequality of bargaining
power, and introduce democratic rights of due process to
industry”(Kaufman, 1993, p. 61). In view of these policies, industrial
relations (IR) departments emerged in organizations in order to
manage collective bargaining agreements (Dulebohn et al., 1995).
World War II created an exceptional demand for labor and slowed
temporarily the growth of unions (Dulebohn et al., 1995) .The war
brought wage freezes and prohibited strikes, but following the war
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
there was an increased need for HRM. The post-war era brought
renewed interest in unions, and workers were determined to recover
their lost wage increases. In addition, federal labor laws and wage
controls created an increased demand for personnel departments. In
addition, the growing power of unions and labor unrest resulted in the
passage of the Taft Hartley Act. The act was designed to equalize
power between labor and management. During the 1940s and 1950s,
unions represented 47% of the U. S. labor force, and 95% of
companies had at least one union (Dulebohn et al., 1995). At the same
time, employers began to hire more educated personnel managers
because of the constraints posed by unions and the need to manage
unionized workforces. In the 1930s, employment managers began to
argue that conflict was not inherent in labor relations, but was caused
by poor management and work systems. As a result, researchers
conducted a series of experiments to examine the effects of different
work systems on worker productivity (Roethlisberger & Dickson,
1939). These researchers found that the social elements and workers'
needs had an important impact on the output and workers' well-being.
This new approach was labeled the Human Relations movement, and
emphasized that workers have social needs. The Human Relations
approach broadened the view of HRM beyond the individual and the
job, and stressed the work group and social structures of organizations
(Dulebohn et al., 1995; Scarpello, 2008). In the 1950s, the Human
Relations movement in the field of HRM challenged the assumption
that people did not want to work , and it stressed that human resources
made important contributions to organizations. As a result, the term
“personnel management” was replaced with the label “human resource
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
management”, which emphasized that human resources were assets to
organizations. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Human Relations approach
evolved into the Quality of Work Life (QWL) era. This approach
attempted to satisfy the interests of employees and organizations by
stressing both employee well-being and productivity. For example,
management developed new programs that underscored job
enrichment and career development; in addition, new policies were
designed to improve workers' quality of work life in order to enhance
their satisfaction and commitment to organizations. During this era,
managers also developed programs that focused on labor-management
cooperation and promoted collaborative efforts to improve workers'
quality of work life. The QWL era was facilitated by legislation that
highlighted fair employment practices including Civil Rights Acts
(1964), Occupational Safety and Health Act (1970), and Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974). The passage of these acts,
and the development of new QWL programs, promoted the need for
professional Human Resource managers and new forms of HRM
policies and practices in organizations.
“Strategic HRM”: 1980s to present
All of these above-mentioned changes and challenges prompted the
development of a “new” HRM function (Kochan, Katz, & McKersie,
1986). This new function is much more of a strategic partner in
organizations due to the recognition that human resources are critical
to the functioning of organizations in the service and knowledge
economies. In addition, the late 20th century saw an increased reliance
on employee-relations, and HRM was called on to foster a sense of
trust in the relations between managers and workers (Dulebohn et al.,
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
1995). American organizations began to stress non-unionized HRM
practices and to adopt many of the Japanese management principles
that emphasized employees as critical resources that can give
organizations a competitive advantage. As a result, HRM has evolved
from a “personnel” function to a human relations, then labor relations,
then industrial relations, and most recently strategic HRM function. In
the articles that follow, this evolution of the field is further articulated
in terms of both general and specific events. To set the stage for
examining our roots, Kaufman (2014-in this issue) traces the
development of HRM from the labor problem that surfaced in the 19th
century to the multifaceted strategic HRM/industrial
relations/personnel economics nature of the field today. Similarly De
Nisi, Wilson and Bite man (2014in this issue) review the history of
HRM throughout the 20th century but focus on how this evolution of
the field is characterized in terms of the HR research —practice gap.
In an interesting twist, Boudreau and Lawler (2014-in this issue) trace
the evolution of the field from a perceptual rather than historical
perspective. Based on survey data from HR leaders spanning two
decades, they share their findings regarding the changing role of HRM
based on the evolution of perceptions regarding the progress of the
field of HRM. The next two articles focus on specific issues/problems
that are fundamental to the evolution of our field. Nkomo and Hoobler
(2014-in this issue) explain the shift in HRM with respect to our
societal and thus organizational ideologies regarding “diversity” .As a
nation, we've evolved from a “white supremacy” view of diversity that
characterized the early 20th century to an “inclusion” orientation that
emerged in the early 21st century. Gowan (2014-in this issue) focuses
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
on the history of unemployment research and how we, as a field, have
evolved from a job-loss research focus to a stress focus to, more
recently, a career growth focus. The last article is relevant to our
current reincarnation as a “strategic partner” in organizations today.
Sikora & Ferris (2014-in this issue) propose that the real issue facing
strategic HRM is HR implementation. Using social context factors,
they explain how the success of HRM is not a matter of “strategy” but
rather a focus on the line managers responsible for implementing
those HR strategies .Notably this article focuses on the current
challenges facing the field, which is a nice segue for the second
volume of our special issue which will focus more so on HRM in
terms of the present and future. It is our hope that these special issues
will foster additional research onthe fundamentals of HRM and lead to
a better understanding of the significance and contributions of the
field as a whole.
“Early beginnings”: 1400s–1700s
Historically, HRM probably was the earliest evolved management
function, predating other functions such as finance,accounting, and
marketing. Although unrecorded, the actual managing of human
resources doubtless has occurred since the first organization of people
into functioning units such as tribes. As tribes formed and,
particularly, as they evolved from hunting and then farming, a division
of labor undoubtedly arose with recognition of differing productivity
of individuals. This development was a form of division of labor in
which different persons occupied different roles in the productive
society. Craftspersons who could develop tools for farmers and be
supported by the productivity of others engaged in farming doubtless
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
emerged, and a natural division of labor arose. In short, the
productivity of various crafts and occupations varied, and trade
evolved to takeadvantage of these variations. Whether managed
through the natural functioning of a market and a market allocation
ofproductive roles, or the human resource management of a tribal
leader, the issues of managing human resources emerged. In the late
18th century the Industrial revolution began in Europe and spread to
the U.S. This revolution completely changed the way that individuals
earned a living, and led to a shift from an agricultural to an industrial
or manufacturing society. Human skills and craftwork were replaced
with machines, and the factory system was born (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). Factories and manufacturing greatly improved production, and
altered employment relationships. For instance, these systems
replaced the self-employment independent contractor system and
created permanent wage earners who were employed by
organizations. At the same time, it resulted in the rationalization of
work and another division of labor. Workers who had been skilled
contractors became the tenders of machines and performed highly
specialized routine tasks. The new manufacturing system also created
the need to supervise large numbers of workers, and management
practices tended to be autocratic and paternalistic (Dulebohn et
al.,1995). Management expressed little concern for the safety or
welfare of workers, and workers were controlled with force and fear
(Slichter, 1919). This approach to management continued until the end
of the 19th century.
“Personnel”: 1800s
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
Around 1800, an English factory owner named Robert Owens altered
a number of aspects of the employment relationship and developed
“welfare to work”systems in order to improve both social and working
conditions for workers (Dulebohn et al., 1995).In particular, he taught
that his workers' temperance and cleanliness improved working
conditions, and refused to employ young children ( Davis, 1957). In
some cases, these practices evolved into more elaborate paternalistic
systems where workers were provided with company housing,
company stores, company schools,
apprenticeships, pensions, life and accident insurance, hospitals, and
libraries (Davis, 1957). Welfareto-work systems can be defined as
“anything for the comfort and improvement, intellectual or social, of
the employees, over and above wages paid, which is not a necessity of
the industry or required by law” (U.S. Bureau of Labor, 1919, p. 8).
These new systems were designed to promote good management and
worker relations, increase productivity, and avert worker conflict and
unionization ( Dulebohn et al., 1995). Not surprisingly, these practices
set the stage for many of the employee benefits that are used to attract,
motivate, and retain workers today. They have also become the norm
for many benefit systems in Western nations. In the era following the
civil war (1860s), labormanagement disputes began to occur.
Employers wanted to thwart unions and believed that changes in
working conditions would enhance performance (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). As a result, welfare-towork programs escalated, but these
programs were actually designed to benefit businesses not workers. As
these programs grew in scope in the late 1800s, organizations hired
welfare secretaries to administer them, and eventually the role of
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
welfare secretary evolved into the employment manager and, at a later
point in time, the “personnel manager”. The primary functions of this
role were to hire, fire, discipline, and reward employees, which meant
that line managers no longer had to focus on managing and retaining
the workforce. Many organizations began to enact paternalistic
practices, but some employers were mistreating employees, which led
crafts workers and others to join protection societies later known as
labor unions (Scarpello, 2008). As might be expected ,employers
fought the growth of unions and took a number of steps to curtail
unionization, including court injunctions or forcing applicants to sign
yellow dog contracts indicating that they would not join a union.
“Labor relations/human relations”: 1900s–1970s
With the advent of manufacturing, employers sought ways of
enhancing efficiency and productivity. Engineers (e.g., Frederick
Taylor), Industrial and Organizational Psychologists (e.g., Lillian
Gilbreath), sociologists (e.g., Max Weber), and Management scholars
(e.g., Heny Fayol) focused on strategies for enhancing organizational
efficiency, and developed new approaches to managing workers. For
instance, the Scientific Management approach fostered by Frederick
Taylor (1947) emphasized the rationalization of work by studying the
job scientifically, breaking it down into components, and determining
the one best way to perform the job. This approach diminished worker
autonomy and stressed that employees should be supervised closely to
ensure that they performed the job exactly as expected. At the same
time Max Weber (1927) suggested that organizational efficiency could
be improved by using legitimate rules and authority systems. The new
design of jobs and the resultant autocratic management systems
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
spawned even greater levels of conflict between workers and
organizations. In the 1930s the National Labor Relations Act, the
Norris-LaGuardia Act (1932), the Wagner Act (1935), and other laws
led to the growth of unions. As a result of increased unionization and
use of scientific management principles, personnel departments grew
and focused on job analysis as the basis for employee selection,
training, job evaluation, and compensation. In addition, The Wagner
Act defined the New Deal industrial relations system and “declared
that the goal of public policy was to encourage the practice of
collective bargaining, to eliminate labor's inequality of bargaining
power, and introduce democratic rights of due process to
industry”(Kaufman, 1993, p. 61). In view of these policies, industrial
relations (IR) departments emerged in organizations in order to
manage collective bargaining agreements (Dulebohn et al., 1995).
World War II created an exceptional demand for labor and slowed
temporarily the growth of unions (Dulebohn et al., 1995) .The war
brought wage freezes and prohibited strikes, but following the war
there was an increased need for HRM. The post-war era brought
renewed interest in unions, and workers were determined to recover
their lost wage increases. In addition, federal labor laws and wage
controls created an increased demand for personnel departments. In
addition, the growing power of unions and labor unrest resulted in the
passage of the Taft Hartley Act. The act was designed to equalize
power between labor and management. During the 1940s and 1950s,
unions represented 47% of the U. S. labor force, and 95% of
companies had at least one union (Dulebohn et al., 1995). At the same
time, employers began to hire more educated personnel managers
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
because of the constraints posed by unions and the need to manage
unionized workforces. In the 1930s, employment managers began to
argue that conflict was not inherent in labor relations, but was caused
by poor management and work systems. As a result, researchers
conducted a series of experiments to examine the effects of different
work systems on worker productivity (Roethlisberger & Dickson,
1939). These researchers found that the social elements and workers'
needs had an important impact on the output and workers' well-being.
This new approach was labeled the Human Relations movement, and
emphasized that workers have social needs. The Human Relations
approach broadened the view of HRM beyond the individual and the
job, and stressed the work group and social structures of organizations
(Dulebohn et al., 1995; Scarpello, 2008). In the 1950s, the Human
Relations movement in the field of HRM challenged the assumption
that people did not want to work , and it stressed that human resources
made important contributions to organizations. As a result, the term
“personnel management” was replaced with the label “human resource
management”, which emphasized that human resources were assets to
organizations. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Human Relations approach
evolved into the Quality of Work Life (QWL) era. This approach
attempted to satisfy the interests of employees and organizations by
stressing both employee well-being and productivity. For example,
management developed new programs that underscored job
enrichment and career development; in addition, new policies were
designed to improve workers' quality of work life in order to enhance
their satisfaction and commitment to organizations. During this era,
managers also developed programs that focused on labor-management
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
cooperation and promoted collaborative efforts to improve workers'
quality of work life. The QWL era was facilitated by legislation that
highlighted fair employment practices including Civil Rights Acts
(1964), Occupational Safety and Health Act (1970), and Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974). The passage of these acts,
and the development of new QWL programs, promoted the need for
professional Human Resource managers and new forms of HRM
policies and practices in organizations.
“Strategic HRM”: 1980s to present
All of these above-mentioned changes and challenges prompted the
development of a “new” HRM function (Kochan, Katz, & McKersie,
1986). This new function is much more of a strategic partner in
organizations due to the recognition that human resources are critical
to the functioning of organizations in the service and knowledge
economies. In addition, the late 20th century saw an increased reliance
on employee-relations, and HRM was called on to foster a sense of
trust in the relations between managers and workers (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). American organizations began to stress non-unionized HRM
practices and to adopt many of the Japanese management principles
that emphasized employees as critical resources that can give
organizations a competitive advantage. As a result, HRM has evolved
from a “personnel” function to a human relations, then labor relations,
then industrial relations, and most recently strategic HRM function. In
the articles that follow, this evolution of the field is further articulated
in terms of both general and specific events. To set the stage for
examining our roots, Kaufman (2014-in this issue) traces the
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
development of HRM from the labor problem that surfaced in the 19th
century to the multifaceted strategic HRM/industrial
relations/personnel economics nature of the field today. Similarly De
Nisi, Wilson and Bite man (2014in this issue) review the history of
HRM throughout the 20th century but focus on how this evolution of
the field is characterized in terms of the HR research —practice gap.
In an interesting twist, Boudreau and Lawler (2014-in this issue) trace
the evolution of the field from a perceptual rather than historical
perspective. Based on survey data from HR leaders spanning two
decades, they share their findings regarding the changing role of HRM
based on the evolution of perceptions regarding the progress of the
field of HRM. The next two articles focus on specific issues/problems
that are fundamental to the evolution of our field. Nkomo and Hoobler
(2014-in this issue) explain the shift in HRM with respect to our
societal and thus organizational ideologies regarding “diversity” .As a
nation, we've evolved from a “white supremacy” view of diversity that
characterized the early 20th century to an “inclusion” orientation that
emerged in the early 21st century. Gowan (2014-in this issue) focuses
on the history of unemployment research and how we, as a field, have
evolved from a job-loss research focus to a stress focus to, more
recently, a career growth focus. The last article is relevant to our
current reincarnation as a “strategic partner” in organizations today.
Sikora & Ferris (2014-in this issue) propose that the real issue facing
strategic HRM is HR implementation. Using social context factors,
they explain how the success of HRM is not a matter of “strategy” but
rather a focus on the line managers responsible for implementing
those HR strategies .Notably this article focuses on the current
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
challenges facing the field, which is a nice segue for the second
volume of our special issue which will focus more so on HRM in
terms of the present and future. It is our hope that these special issues
will foster additional research onthe fundamentals of HRM and lead to
a better understanding of the significance and contributions of the
field as a whole.
“Early beginnings”: 1400s–1700s
Historically, HRM probably was the earliest evolved management
function, predating other functions such as finance,accounting, and
marketing. Although unrecorded, the actual managing of human
resources doubtless has occurred since the first organization of people
into functioning units such as tribes. As tribes formed and,
particularly, as they evolved from hunting and then farming, a division
of labor undoubtedly arose with recognition of differing productivity
of individuals. This development was a form of division of labor in
which different persons occupied different roles in the productive
society. Craftspersons who could develop tools for farmers and be
supported by the productivity of others engaged in farming doubtless
emerged, and a natural division of labor arose. In short, the
productivity of various crafts and occupations varied, and trade
evolved to takeadvantage of these variations. Whether managed
through the natural functioning of a market and a market allocation
ofproductive roles, or the human resource management of a tribal
leader, the issues of managing human resources emerged. In the late
18th century the Industrial revolution began in Europe and spread to
the U.S. This revolution completely changed the way that individuals
earned a living, and led to a shift from an agricultural to an industrial
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
or manufacturing society. Human skills and craftwork were replaced
with machines, and the factory system was born (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). Factories and manufacturing greatly improved production, and
altered employment relationships. For instance, these systems
replaced the self-employment independent contractor system and
created permanent wage earners who were employed by
organizations. At the same time, it resulted in the rationalization of
work and another division of labor. Workers who had been skilled
contractors became the tenders of machines and performed highly
specialized routine tasks. The new manufacturing system also created
the need to supervise large numbers of workers, and management
practices tended to be autocratic and paternalistic (Dulebohn et
al.,1995). Management expressed little concern for the safety or
welfare of workers, and workers were controlled with force and fear
(Slichter, 1919). This approach to management continued until the end
of the 19th century.
“Personnel”: 1800s
Around 1800, an English factory owner named Robert Owens altered
a number of aspects of the employment relationship and developed
“welfare to work”systems in order to improve both social and working
conditions for workers (Dulebohn et al., 1995).In particular, he taught
that his workers' temperance and cleanliness improved working
conditions, and refused to employ young children ( Davis, 1957). In
some cases, these practices evolved into more elaborate paternalistic
systems where workers were provided with company housing,
company stores, company schools,
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
apprenticeships, pensions, life and accident insurance, hospitals, and
libraries (Davis, 1957). Welfareto-work systems can be defined as
“anything for the comfort and improvement, intellectual or social, of
the employees, over and above wages paid, which is not a necessity of
the industry or required by law” (U.S. Bureau of Labor, 1919, p. 8).
These new systems were designed to promote good management and
worker relations, increase productivity, and avert worker conflict and
unionization ( Dulebohn et al., 1995). Not surprisingly, these practices
set the stage for many of the employee benefits that are used to attract,
motivate, and retain workers today. They have also become the norm
for many benefit systems in Western nations. In the era following the
civil war (1860s), labormanagement disputes began to occur.
Employers wanted to thwart unions and believed that changes in
working conditions would enhance performance (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). As a result, welfare-towork programs escalated, but these
programs were actually designed to benefit businesses not workers. As
these programs grew in scope in the late 1800s, organizations hired
welfare secretaries to administer them, and eventually the role of
welfare secretary evolved into the employment manager and, at a later
point in time, the “personnel manager”. The primary functions of this
role were to hire, fire, discipline, and reward employees, which meant
that line managers no longer had to focus on managing and retaining
the workforce. Many organizations began to enact paternalistic
practices, but some employers were mistreating employees, which led
crafts workers and others to join protection societies later known as
labor unions (Scarpello, 2008). As might be expected ,employers
fought the growth of unions and took a number of steps to curtail
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
unionization, including court injunctions or forcing applicants to sign
yellow dog contracts indicating that they would not join a union.
“Labor relations/human relations”: 1900s–1970s
With the advent of manufacturing, employers sought ways of
enhancing efficiency and productivity. Engineers (e.g., Frederick
Taylor), Industrial and Organizational Psychologists (e.g., Lillian
Gilbreath), sociologists (e.g., Max Weber), and Management scholars
(e.g., Heny Fayol) focused on strategies for enhancing organizational
efficiency, and developed new approaches to managing workers. For
instance, the Scientific Management approach fostered by Frederick
Taylor (1947) emphasized the rationalization of work by studying the
job scientifically, breaking it down into components, and determining
the one best way to perform the job. This approach diminished worker
autonomy and stressed that employees should be supervised closely to
ensure that they performed the job exactly as expected. At the same
time Max Weber (1927) suggested that organizational efficiency could
be improved by using legitimate rules and authority systems. The new
design of jobs and the resultant autocratic management systems
spawned even greater levels of conflict between workers and
organizations. In the 1930s the National Labor Relations Act, the
Norris-LaGuardia Act (1932), the Wagner Act (1935), and other laws
led to the growth of unions. As a result of increased unionization and
use of scientific management principles, personnel departments grew
and focused on job analysis as the basis for employee selection,
training, job evaluation, and compensation. In addition, The Wagner
Act defined the New Deal industrial relations system and “declared
that the goal of public policy was to encourage the practice of
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
collective bargaining, to eliminate labor's inequality of bargaining
power, and introduce democratic rights of due process to
industry”(Kaufman, 1993, p. 61). In view of these policies, industrial
relations (IR) departments emerged in organizations in order to
manage collective bargaining agreements (Dulebohn et al., 1995).
World War II created an exceptional demand for labor and slowed
temporarily the growth of unions (Dulebohn et al., 1995) .The war
brought wage freezes and prohibited strikes, but following the war
there was an increased need for HRM. The post-war era brought
renewed interest in unions, and workers were determined to recover
their lost wage increases. In addition, federal labor laws and wage
controls created an increased demand for personnel departments. In
addition, the growing power of unions and labor unrest resulted in the
passage of the Taft Hartley Act. The act was designed to equalize
power between labor and management. During the 1940s and 1950s,
unions represented 47% of the U. S. labor force, and 95% of
companies had at least one union (Dulebohn et al., 1995). At the same
time, employers began to hire more educated personnel managers
because of the constraints posed by unions and the need to manage
unionized workforces. In the 1930s, employment managers began to
argue that conflict was not inherent in labor relations, but was caused
by poor management and work systems. As a result, researchers
conducted a series of experiments to examine the effects of different
work systems on worker productivity (Roethlisberger & Dickson,
1939). These researchers found that the social elements and workers'
needs had an important impact on the output and workers' well-being.
This new approach was labeled the Human Relations movement, and
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
emphasized that workers have social needs. The Human Relations
approach broadened the view of HRM beyond the individual and the
job, and stressed the work group and social structures of organizations
(Dulebohn et al., 1995; Scarpello, 2008). In the 1950s, the Human
Relations movement in the field of HRM challenged the assumption
that people did not want to work , and it stressed that human resources
made important contributions to organizations. As a result, the term
“personnel management” was replaced with the label “human resource
management”, which emphasized that human resources were assets to
organizations. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Human Relations approach
evolved into the Quality of Work Life (QWL) era. This approach
attempted to satisfy the interests of employees and organizations by
stressing both employee well-being and productivity. For example,
management developed new programs that underscored job
enrichment and career development; in addition, new policies were
designed to improve workers' quality of work life in order to enhance
their satisfaction and commitment to organizations. During this era,
managers also developed programs that focused on labor-management
cooperation and promoted collaborative efforts to improve workers'
quality of work life. The QWL era was facilitated by legislation that
highlighted fair employment practices including Civil Rights Acts
(1964), Occupational Safety and Health Act (1970), and Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974). The passage of these acts,
and the development of new QWL programs, promoted the need for
professional Human Resource managers and new forms of HRM
policies and practices in organizations.
“Strategic HRM”: 1980s to present
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
All of these above-mentioned changes and challenges prompted the
development of a “new” HRM function (Kochan, Katz, & McKersie,
1986). This new function is much more of a strategic partner in
organizations due to the recognition that human resources are critical
to the functioning of organizations in the service and knowledge
economies. In addition, the late 20th century saw an increased reliance
on employee-relations, and HRM was called on to foster a sense of
trust in the relations between managers and workers (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). American organizations began to stress non-unionized HRM
practices and to adopt many of the Japanese management principles
that emphasized employees as critical resources that can give
organizations a competitive advantage. As a result, HRM has evolved
from a “personnel” function to a human relations, then labor relations,
then industrial relations, and most recently strategic HRM function. In
the articles that follow, this evolution of the field is further articulated
in terms of both general and specific events. To set the stage for
examining our roots, Kaufman (2014-in this issue) traces the
development of HRM from the labor problem that surfaced in the 19th
century to the multifaceted strategic HRM/industrial
relations/personnel economics nature of the field today. Similarly De
Nisi, Wilson and Bite man (2014in this issue) review the history of
HRM throughout the 20th century but focus on how this evolution of
the field is characterized in terms of the HR research —practice gap.
In an interesting twist, Boudreau and Lawler (2014-in this issue) trace
the evolution of the field from a perceptual rather than historical
perspective. Based on survey data from HR leaders spanning two
decades, they share their findings regarding the changing role of HRM
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
based on the evolution of perceptions regarding the progress of the
field of HRM. The next two articles focus on specific issues/problems
that are fundamental to the evolution of our field. Nkomo and Hoobler
(2014-in this issue) explain the shift in HRM with respect to our
societal and thus organizational ideologies regarding “diversity” .As a
nation, we've evolved from a “white supremacy” view of diversity that
characterized the early 20th century to an “inclusion” orientation that
emerged in the early 21st century. Gowan (2014-in this issue) focuses
on the history of unemployment research and how we, as a field, have
evolved from a job-loss research focus to a stress focus to, more
recently, a career growth focus. The last article is relevant to our
current reincarnation as a “strategic partner” in organizations today.
Sikora & Ferris (2014-in this issue) propose that the real issue facing
strategic HRM is HR implementation. Using social context factors,
they explain how the success of HRM is not a matter of “strategy” but
rather a focus on the line managers responsible for implementing
those HR strategies .Notably this article focuses on the current
challenges facing the field, which is a nice segue for the second
volume of our special issue which will focus more so on HRM in
terms of the present and future. It is our hope that these special issues
will foster additional research onthe fundamentals of HRM and lead to
a better understanding of the significance and contributions of the
field as a whole.
“Early beginnings”: 1400s–1700s
Historically, HRM probably was the earliest evolved management
function, predating other functions such as finance,accounting, and
marketing. Although unrecorded, the actual managing of human
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
resources doubtless has occurred since the first organization of people
into functioning units such as tribes. As tribes formed and,
particularly, as they evolved from hunting and then farming, a division
of labor undoubtedly arose with recognition of differing productivity
of individuals. This development was a form of division of labor in
which different persons occupied different roles in the productive
society. Craftspersons who could develop tools for farmers and be
supported by the productivity of others engaged in farming doubtless
emerged, and a natural division of labor arose. In short, the
productivity of various crafts and occupations varied, and trade
evolved to takeadvantage of these variations. Whether managed
through the natural functioning of a market and a market allocation
ofproductive roles, or the human resource management of a tribal
leader, the issues of managing human resources emerged. In the late
18th century the Industrial revolution began in Europe and spread to
the U.S. This revolution completely changed the way that individuals
earned a living, and led to a shift from an agricultural to an industrial
or manufacturing society. Human skills and craftwork were replaced
with machines, and the factory system was born (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). Factories and manufacturing greatly improved production, and
altered employment relationships. For instance, these systems
replaced the self-employment independent contractor system and
created permanent wage earners who were employed by
organizations. At the same time, it resulted in the rationalization of
work and another division of labor. Workers who had been skilled
contractors became the tenders of machines and performed highly
specialized routine tasks. The new manufacturing system also created
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
the need to supervise large numbers of workers, and management
practices tended to be autocratic and paternalistic (Dulebohn et
al.,1995). Management expressed little concern for the safety or
welfare of workers, and workers were controlled with force and fear
(Slichter, 1919). This approach to management continued until the end
of the 19th century.
“Personnel”: 1800s
Around 1800, an English factory owner named Robert Owens altered
a number of aspects of the employment relationship and developed
“welfare to work”systems in order to improve both social and working
conditions for workers (Dulebohn et al., 1995).In particular, he taught
that his workers' temperance and cleanliness improved working
conditions, and refused to employ young children ( Davis, 1957). In
some cases, these practices evolved into more elaborate paternalistic
systems where workers were provided with company housing,
company stores, company schools,
apprenticeships, pensions, life and accident insurance, hospitals, and
libraries (Davis, 1957). Welfareto-work systems can be defined as
“anything for the comfort and improvement, intellectual or social, of
the employees, over and above wages paid, which is not a necessity of
the industry or required by law” (U.S. Bureau of Labor, 1919, p. 8).
These new systems were designed to promote good management and
worker relations, increase productivity, and avert worker conflict and
unionization ( Dulebohn et al., 1995). Not surprisingly, these practices
set the stage for many of the employee benefits that are used to attract,
motivate, and retain workers today. They have also become the norm
for many benefit systems in Western nations. In the era following the
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
civil war (1860s), labormanagement disputes began to occur.
Employers wanted to thwart unions and believed that changes in
working conditions would enhance performance (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). As a result, welfare-towork programs escalated, but these
programs were actually designed to benefit businesses not workers. As
these programs grew in scope in the late 1800s, organizations hired
welfare secretaries to administer them, and eventually the role of
welfare secretary evolved into the employment manager and, at a later
point in time, the “personnel manager”. The primary functions of this
role were to hire, fire, discipline, and reward employees, which meant
that line managers no longer had to focus on managing and retaining
the workforce. Many organizations began to enact paternalistic
practices, but some employers were mistreating employees, which led
crafts workers and others to join protection societies later known as
labor unions (Scarpello, 2008). As might be expected ,employers
fought the growth of unions and took a number of steps to curtail
unionization, including court injunctions or forcing applicants to sign
yellow dog contracts indicating that they would not join a union.
“Labor relations/human relations”: 1900s–1970s
With the advent of manufacturing, employers sought ways of
enhancing efficiency and productivity. Engineers (e.g., Frederick
Taylor), Industrial and Organizational Psychologists (e.g., Lillian
Gilbreath), sociologists (e.g., Max Weber), and Management scholars
(e.g., Heny Fayol) focused on strategies for enhancing organizational
efficiency, and developed new approaches to managing workers. For
instance, the Scientific Management approach fostered by Frederick
Taylor (1947) emphasized the rationalization of work by studying the
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
job scientifically, breaking it down into components, and determining
the one best way to perform the job. This approach diminished worker
autonomy and stressed that employees should be supervised closely to
ensure that they performed the job exactly as expected. At the same
time Max Weber (1927) suggested that organizational efficiency could
be improved by using legitimate rules and authority systems. The new
design of jobs and the resultant autocratic management systems
spawned even greater levels of conflict between workers and
organizations. In the 1930s the National Labor Relations Act, the
Norris-LaGuardia Act (1932), the Wagner Act (1935), and other laws
led to the growth of unions. As a result of increased unionization and
use of scientific management principles, personnel departments grew
and focused on job analysis as the basis for employee selection,
training, job evaluation, and compensation. In addition, The Wagner
Act defined the New Deal industrial relations system and “declared
that the goal of public policy was to encourage the practice of
collective bargaining, to eliminate labor's inequality of bargaining
power, and introduce democratic rights of due process to
industry”(Kaufman, 1993, p. 61). In view of these policies, industrial
relations (IR) departments emerged in organizations in order to
manage collective bargaining agreements (Dulebohn et al., 1995).
World War II created an exceptional demand for labor and slowed
temporarily the growth of unions (Dulebohn et al., 1995) .The war
brought wage freezes and prohibited strikes, but following the war
there was an increased need for HRM. The post-war era brought
renewed interest in unions, and workers were determined to recover
their lost wage increases. In addition, federal labor laws and wage
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
controls created an increased demand for personnel departments. In
addition, the growing power of unions and labor unrest resulted in the
passage of the Taft Hartley Act. The act was designed to equalize
power between labor and management. During the 1940s and 1950s,
unions represented 47% of the U. S. labor force, and 95% of
companies had at least one union (Dulebohn et al., 1995). At the same
time, employers began to hire more educated personnel managers
because of the constraints posed by unions and the need to manage
unionized workforces. In the 1930s, employment managers began to
argue that conflict was not inherent in labor relations, but was caused
by poor management and work systems. As a result, researchers
conducted a series of experiments to examine the effects of different
work systems on worker productivity (Roethlisberger & Dickson,
1939). These researchers found that the social elements and workers'
needs had an important impact on the output and workers' well-being.
This new approach was labeled the Human Relations movement, and
emphasized that workers have social needs. The Human Relations
approach broadened the view of HRM beyond the individual and the
job, and stressed the work group and social structures of organizations
(Dulebohn et al., 1995; Scarpello, 2008). In the 1950s, the Human
Relations movement in the field of HRM challenged the assumption
that people did not want to work , and it stressed that human resources
made important contributions to organizations. As a result, the term
“personnel management” was replaced with the label “human resource
management”, which emphasized that human resources were assets to
organizations. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Human Relations approach
evolved into the Quality of Work Life (QWL) era. This approach
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
attempted to satisfy the interests of employees and organizations by
stressing both employee well-being and productivity. For example,
management developed new programs that underscored job
enrichment and career development; in addition, new policies were
designed to improve workers' quality of work life in order to enhance
their satisfaction and commitment to organizations. During this era,
managers also developed programs that focused on labor-management
cooperation and promoted collaborative efforts to improve workers'
quality of work life. The QWL era was facilitated by legislation that
highlighted fair employment practices including Civil Rights Acts
(1964), Occupational Safety and Health Act (1970), and Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974). The passage of these acts,
and the development of new QWL programs, promoted the need for
professional Human Resource managers and new forms of HRM
policies and practices in organizations.
“Strategic HRM”: 1980s to present
All of these above-mentioned changes and challenges prompted the
development of a “new” HRM function (Kochan, Katz, & McKersie,
1986). This new function is much more of a strategic partner in
organizations due to the recognition that human resources are critical
to the functioning of organizations in the service and knowledge
economies. In addition, the late 20th century saw an increased reliance
on employee-relations, and HRM was called on to foster a sense of
trust in the relations between managers and workers (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). American organizations began to stress non-unionized HRM
practices and to adopt many of the Japanese management principles
that emphasized employees as critical resources that can give
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
organizations a competitive advantage. As a result, HRM has evolved
from a “personnel” function to a human relations, then labor relations,
then industrial relations, and most recently strategic HRM function. In
the articles that follow, this evolution of the field is further articulated
in terms of both general and specific events. To set the stage for
examining our roots, Kaufman (2014-in this issue) traces the
development of HRM from the labor problem that surfaced in the 19th
century to the multifaceted strategic HRM/industrial
relations/personnel economics nature of the field today. Similarly De
Nisi, Wilson and Bite man (2014in this issue) review the history of
HRM throughout the 20th century but focus on how this evolution of
the field is characterized in terms of the HR research —practice gap.
In an interesting twist, Boudreau and Lawler (2014-in this issue) trace
the evolution of the field from a perceptual rather than historical
perspective. Based on survey data from HR leaders spanning two
decades, they share their findings regarding the changing role of HRM
based on the evolution of perceptions regarding the progress of the
field of HRM. The next two articles focus on specific issues/problems
that are fundamental to the evolution of our field. Nkomo and Hoobler
(2014-in this issue) explain the shift in HRM with respect to our
societal and thus organizational ideologies regarding “diversity” .As a
nation, we've evolved from a “white supremacy” view of diversity that
characterized the early 20th century to an “inclusion” orientation that
emerged in the early 21st century. Gowan (2014-in this issue) focuses
on the history of unemployment research and how we, as a field, have
evolved from a job-loss research focus to a stress focus to, more
recently, a career growth focus. The last article is relevant to our
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
current reincarnation as a “strategic partner” in organizations today.
Sikora & Ferris (2014-in this issue) propose that the real issue facing
strategic HRM is HR implementation. Using social context factors,
they explain how the success of HRM is not a matter of “strategy” but
rather a focus on the line managers responsible for implementing
those HR strategies .Notably this article focuses on the current
challenges facing the field, which is a nice segue for the second
volume of our special issue which will focus more so on HRM in
terms of the present and future. It is our hope that these special issues
will foster additional research onthe fundamentals of HRM and lead to
a better understanding of the significance and contributions of the
field as a whole.
“Early beginnings”: 1400s–1700s
Historically, HRM probably was the earliest evolved management
function, predating other functions such as finance,accounting, and
marketing. Although unrecorded, the actual managing of human
resources doubtless has occurred since the first organization of people
into functioning units such as tribes. As tribes formed and,
particularly, as they evolved from hunting and then farming, a division
of labor undoubtedly arose with recognition of differing productivity
of individuals. This development was a form of division of labor in
which different persons occupied different roles in the productive
society. Craftspersons who could develop tools for farmers and be
supported by the productivity of others engaged in farming doubtless
emerged, and a natural division of labor arose. In short, the
productivity of various crafts and occupations varied, and trade
evolved to takeadvantage of these variations. Whether managed
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
through the natural functioning of a market and a market allocation
ofproductive roles, or the human resource management of a tribal
leader, the issues of managing human resources emerged. In the late
18th century the Industrial revolution began in Europe and spread to
the U.S. This revolution completely changed the way that individuals
earned a living, and led to a shift from an agricultural to an industrial
or manufacturing society. Human skills and craftwork were replaced
with machines, and the factory system was born (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). Factories and manufacturing greatly improved production, and
altered employment relationships. For instance, these systems
replaced the self-employment independent contractor system and
created permanent wage earners who were employed by
organizations. At the same time, it resulted in the rationalization of
work and another division of labor. Workers who had been skilled
contractors became the tenders of machines and performed highly
specialized routine tasks. The new manufacturing system also created
the need to supervise large numbers of workers, and management
practices tended to be autocratic and paternalistic (Dulebohn et
al.,1995). Management expressed little concern for the safety or
welfare of workers, and workers were controlled with force and fear
(Slichter, 1919). This approach to management continued until the end
of the 19th century.
“Personnel”: 1800s
Around 1800, an English factory owner named Robert Owens altered
a number of aspects of the employment relationship and developed
“welfare to work”systems in order to improve both social and working
conditions for workers (Dulebohn et al., 1995).In particular, he taught
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
that his workers' temperance and cleanliness improved working
conditions, and refused to employ young children ( Davis, 1957). In
some cases, these practices evolved into more elaborate paternalistic
systems where workers were provided with company housing,
company stores, company schools,
apprenticeships, pensions, life and accident insurance, hospitals, and
libraries (Davis, 1957). Welfareto-work systems can be defined as
“anything for the comfort and improvement, intellectual or social, of
the employees, over and above wages paid, which is not a necessity of
the industry or required by law” (U.S. Bureau of Labor, 1919, p. 8).
These new systems were designed to promote good management and
worker relations, increase productivity, and avert worker conflict and
unionization ( Dulebohn et al., 1995). Not surprisingly, these practices
set the stage for many of the employee benefits that are used to attract,
motivate, and retain workers today. They have also become the norm
for many benefit systems in Western nations. In the era following the
civil war (1860s), labormanagement disputes began to occur.
Employers wanted to thwart unions and believed that changes in
working conditions would enhance performance (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). As a result, welfare-towork programs escalated, but these
programs were actually designed to benefit businesses not workers. As
these programs grew in scope in the late 1800s, organizations hired
welfare secretaries to administer them, and eventually the role of
welfare secretary evolved into the employment manager and, at a later
point in time, the “personnel manager”. The primary functions of this
role were to hire, fire, discipline, and reward employees, which meant
that line managers no longer had to focus on managing and retaining
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
the workforce. Many organizations began to enact paternalistic
practices, but some employers were mistreating employees, which led
crafts workers and others to join protection societies later known as
labor unions (Scarpello, 2008). As might be expected ,employers
fought the growth of unions and took a number of steps to curtail
unionization, including court injunctions or forcing applicants to sign
yellow dog contracts indicating that they would not join a union.
“Labor relations/human relations”: 1900s–1970s
With the advent of manufacturing, employers sought ways of
enhancing efficiency and productivity. Engineers (e.g., Frederick
Taylor), Industrial and Organizational Psychologists (e.g., Lillian
Gilbreath), sociologists (e.g., Max Weber), and Management scholars
(e.g., Heny Fayol) focused on strategies for enhancing organizational
efficiency, and developed new approaches to managing workers. For
instance, the Scientific Management approach fostered by Frederick
Taylor (1947) emphasized the rationalization of work by studying the
job scientifically, breaking it down into components, and determining
the one best way to perform the job. This approach diminished worker
autonomy and stressed that employees should be supervised closely to
ensure that they performed the job exactly as expected. At the same
time Max Weber (1927) suggested that organizational efficiency could
be improved by using legitimate rules and authority systems. The new
design of jobs and the resultant autocratic management systems
spawned even greater levels of conflict between workers and
organizations. In the 1930s the National Labor Relations Act, the
Norris-LaGuardia Act (1932), the Wagner Act (1935), and other laws
led to the growth of unions. As a result of increased unionization and
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
use of scientific management principles, personnel departments grew
and focused on job analysis as the basis for employee selection,
training, job evaluation, and compensation. In addition, The Wagner
Act defined the New Deal industrial relations system and “declared
that the goal of public policy was to encourage the practice of
collective bargaining, to eliminate labor's inequality of bargaining
power, and introduce democratic rights of due process to
industry”(Kaufman, 1993, p. 61). In view of these policies, industrial
relations (IR) departments emerged in organizations in order to
manage collective bargaining agreements (Dulebohn et al., 1995).
World War II created an exceptional demand for labor and slowed
temporarily the growth of unions (Dulebohn et al., 1995) .The war
brought wage freezes and prohibited strikes, but following the war
there was an increased need for HRM. The post-war era brought
renewed interest in unions, and workers were determined to recover
their lost wage increases. In addition, federal labor laws and wage
controls created an increased demand for personnel departments. In
addition, the growing power of unions and labor unrest resulted in the
passage of the Taft Hartley Act. The act was designed to equalize
power between labor and management. During the 1940s and 1950s,
unions represented 47% of the U. S. labor force, and 95% of
companies had at least one union (Dulebohn et al., 1995). At the same
time, employers began to hire more educated personnel managers
because of the constraints posed by unions and the need to manage
unionized workforces. In the 1930s, employment managers began to
argue that conflict was not inherent in labor relations, but was caused
by poor management and work systems. As a result, researchers
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
conducted a series of experiments to examine the effects of different
work systems on worker productivity (Roethlisberger & Dickson,
1939). These researchers found that the social elements and workers'
needs had an important impact on the output and workers' well-being.
This new approach was labeled the Human Relations movement, and
emphasized that workers have social needs. The Human Relations
approach broadened the view of HRM beyond the individual and the
job, and stressed the work group and social structures of organizations
(Dulebohn et al., 1995; Scarpello, 2008). In the 1950s, the Human
Relations movement in the field of HRM challenged the assumption
that people did not want to work , and it stressed that human resources
made important contributions to organizations. As a result, the term
“personnel management” was replaced with the label “human resource
management”, which emphasized that human resources were assets to
organizations. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Human Relations approach
evolved into the Quality of Work Life (QWL) era. This approach
attempted to satisfy the interests of employees and organizations by
stressing both employee well-being and productivity. For example,
management developed new programs that underscored job
enrichment and career development; in addition, new policies were
designed to improve workers' quality of work life in order to enhance
their satisfaction and commitment to organizations. During this era,
managers also developed programs that focused on labor-management
cooperation and promoted collaborative efforts to improve workers'
quality of work life. The QWL era was facilitated by legislation that
highlighted fair employment practices including Civil Rights Acts
(1964), Occupational Safety and Health Act (1970), and Employee
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974). The passage of these acts,
and the development of new QWL programs, promoted the need for
professional Human Resource managers and new forms of HRM
policies and practices in organizations.
“Strategic HRM”: 1980s to present
All of these above-mentioned changes and challenges prompted the
development of a “new” HRM function (Kochan, Katz, & McKersie,
1986). This new function is much more of a strategic partner in
organizations due to the recognition that human resources are critical
to the functioning of organizations in the service and knowledge
economies. In addition, the late 20th century saw an increased reliance
on employee-relations, and HRM was called on to foster a sense of
trust in the relations between managers and workers (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). American organizations began to stress non-unionized HRM
practices and to adopt many of the Japanese management principles
that emphasized employees as critical resources that can give
organizations a competitive advantage. As a result, HRM has evolved
from a “personnel” function to a human relations, then labor relations,
then industrial relations, and most recently strategic HRM function. In
the articles that follow, this evolution of the field is further articulated
in terms of both general and specific events. To set the stage for
examining our roots, Kaufman (2014-in this issue) traces the
development of HRM from the labor problem that surfaced in the 19th
century to the multifaceted strategic HRM/industrial
relations/personnel economics nature of the field today. Similarly De
Nisi, Wilson and Bite man (2014in this issue) review the history of
HRM throughout the 20th century but focus on how this evolution of
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
the field is characterized in terms of the HR research —practice gap.
In an interesting twist, Boudreau and Lawler (2014-in this issue) trace
the evolution of the field from a perceptual rather than historical
perspective. Based on survey data from HR leaders spanning two
decades, they share their findings regarding the changing role of HRM
based on the evolution of perceptions regarding the progress of the
field of HRM. The next two articles focus on specific issues/problems
that are fundamental to the evolution of our field. Nkomo and Hoobler
(2014-in this issue) explain the shift in HRM with respect to our
societal and thus organizational ideologies regarding “diversity” .As a
nation, we've evolved from a “white supremacy” view of diversity that
characterized the early 20th century to an “inclusion” orientation that
emerged in the early 21st century. Gowan (2014-in this issue) focuses
on the history of unemployment research and how we, as a field, have
evolved from a job-loss research focus to a stress focus to, more
recently, a career growth focus. The last article is relevant to our
current reincarnation as a “strategic partner” in organizations today.
Sikora & Ferris (2014-in this issue) propose that the real issue facing
strategic HRM is HR implementation. Using social context factors,
they explain how the success of HRM is not a matter of “strategy” but
rather a focus on the line managers responsible for implementing
those HR strategies .Notably this article focuses on the current
challenges facing the field, which is a nice segue for the second
volume of our special issue which will focus more so on HRM in
terms of the present and future. It is our hope that these special issues
will foster additional research onthe fundamentals of HRM and lead to
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
a better understanding of the significance and contributions of the
field as a whole.
“Early beginnings”: 1400s–1700s
Historically, HRM probably was the earliest evolved management
function, predating other functions such as finance,accounting, and
marketing. Although unrecorded, the actual managing of human
resources doubtless has occurred since the first organization of people
into functioning units such as tribes. As tribes formed and,
particularly, as they evolved from hunting and then farming, a division
of labor undoubtedly arose with recognition of differing productivity
of individuals. This development was a form of division of labor in
which different persons occupied different roles in the productive
society. Craftspersons who could develop tools for farmers and be
supported by the productivity of others engaged in farming doubtless
emerged, and a natural division of labor arose. In short, the
productivity of various crafts and occupations varied, and trade
evolved to takeadvantage of these variations. Whether managed
through the natural functioning of a market and a market allocation
ofproductive roles, or the human resource management of a tribal
leader, the issues of managing human resources emerged. In the late
18th century the Industrial revolution began in Europe and spread to
the U.S. This revolution completely changed the way that individuals
earned a living, and led to a shift from an agricultural to an industrial
or manufacturing society. Human skills and craftwork were replaced
with machines, and the factory system was born (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). Factories and manufacturing greatly improved production, and
altered employment relationships. For instance, these systems
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
replaced the self-employment independent contractor system and
created permanent wage earners who were employed by
organizations. At the same time, it resulted in the rationalization of
work and another division of labor. Workers who had been skilled
contractors became the tenders of machines and performed highly
specialized routine tasks. The new manufacturing system also created
the need to supervise large numbers of workers, and management
practices tended to be autocratic and paternalistic (Dulebohn et
al.,1995). Management expressed little concern for the safety or
welfare of workers, and workers were controlled with force and fear
(Slichter, 1919). This approach to management continued until the end
of the 19th century.
“Personnel”: 1800s
Around 1800, an English factory owner named Robert Owens altered
a number of aspects of the employment relationship and developed
“welfare to work”systems in order to improve both social and working
conditions for workers (Dulebohn et al., 1995).In particular, he taught
that his workers' temperance and cleanliness improved working
conditions, and refused to employ young children ( Davis, 1957). In
some cases, these practices evolved into more elaborate paternalistic
systems where workers were provided with company housing,
company stores, company schools,
apprenticeships, pensions, life and accident insurance, hospitals, and
libraries (Davis, 1957). Welfareto-work systems can be defined as
“anything for the comfort and improvement, intellectual or social, of
the employees, over and above wages paid, which is not a necessity of
the industry or required by law” (U.S. Bureau of Labor, 1919, p. 8).
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
These new systems were designed to promote good management and
worker relations, increase productivity, and avert worker conflict and
unionization ( Dulebohn et al., 1995). Not surprisingly, these practices
set the stage for many of the employee benefits that are used to attract,
motivate, and retain workers today. They have also become the norm
for many benefit systems in Western nations. In the era following the
civil war (1860s), labormanagement disputes began to occur.
Employers wanted to thwart unions and believed that changes in
working conditions would enhance performance (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). As a result, welfare-towork programs escalated, but these
programs were actually designed to benefit businesses not workers. As
these programs grew in scope in the late 1800s, organizations hired
welfare secretaries to administer them, and eventually the role of
welfare secretary evolved into the employment manager and, at a later
point in time, the “personnel manager”. The primary functions of this
role were to hire, fire, discipline, and reward employees, which meant
that line managers no longer had to focus on managing and retaining
the workforce. Many organizations began to enact paternalistic
practices, but some employers were mistreating employees, which led
crafts workers and others to join protection societies later known as
labor unions (Scarpello, 2008). As might be expected ,employers
fought the growth of unions and took a number of steps to curtail
unionization, including court injunctions or forcing applicants to sign
yellow dog contracts indicating that they would not join a union.
“Labor relations/human relations”: 1900s–1970s
With the advent of manufacturing, employers sought ways of
enhancing efficiency and productivity. Engineers (e.g., Frederick
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
Taylor), Industrial and Organizational Psychologists (e.g., Lillian
Gilbreath), sociologists (e.g., Max Weber), and Management scholars
(e.g., Heny Fayol) focused on strategies for enhancing organizational
efficiency, and developed new approaches to managing workers. For
instance, the Scientific Management approach fostered by Frederick
Taylor (1947) emphasized the rationalization of work by studying the
job scientifically, breaking it down into components, and determining
the one best way to perform the job. This approach diminished worker
autonomy and stressed that employees should be supervised closely to
ensure that they performed the job exactly as expected. At the same
time Max Weber (1927) suggested that organizational efficiency could
be improved by using legitimate rules and authority systems. The new
design of jobs and the resultant autocratic management systems
spawned even greater levels of conflict between workers and
organizations. In the 1930s the National Labor Relations Act, the
Norris-LaGuardia Act (1932), the Wagner Act (1935), and other laws
led to the growth of unions. As a result of increased unionization and
use of scientific management principles, personnel departments grew
and focused on job analysis as the basis for employee selection,
training, job evaluation, and compensation. In addition, The Wagner
Act defined the New Deal industrial relations system and “declared
that the goal of public policy was to encourage the practice of
collective bargaining, to eliminate labor's inequality of bargaining
power, and introduce democratic rights of due process to
industry”(Kaufman, 1993, p. 61). In view of these policies, industrial
relations (IR) departments emerged in organizations in order to
manage collective bargaining agreements (Dulebohn et al., 1995).
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
World War II created an exceptional demand for labor and slowed
temporarily the growth of unions (Dulebohn et al., 1995) .The war
brought wage freezes and prohibited strikes, but following the war
there was an increased need for HRM. The post-war era brought
renewed interest in unions, and workers were determined to recover
their lost wage increases. In addition, federal labor laws and wage
controls created an increased demand for personnel departments. In
addition, the growing power of unions and labor unrest resulted in the
passage of the Taft Hartley Act. The act was designed to equalize
power between labor and management. During the 1940s and 1950s,
unions represented 47% of the U. S. labor force, and 95% of
companies had at least one union (Dulebohn et al., 1995). At the same
time, employers began to hire more educated personnel managers
because of the constraints posed by unions and the need to manage
unionized workforces. In the 1930s, employment managers began to
argue that conflict was not inherent in labor relations, but was caused
by poor management and work systems. As a result, researchers
conducted a series of experiments to examine the effects of different
work systems on worker productivity (Roethlisberger & Dickson,
1939). These researchers found that the social elements and workers'
needs had an important impact on the output and workers' well-being.
This new approach was labeled the Human Relations movement, and
emphasized that workers have social needs. The Human Relations
approach broadened the view of HRM beyond the individual and the
job, and stressed the work group and social structures of organizations
(Dulebohn et al., 1995; Scarpello, 2008). In the 1950s, the Human
Relations movement in the field of HRM challenged the assumption
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
that people did not want to work , and it stressed that human resources
made important contributions to organizations. As a result, the term
“personnel management” was replaced with the label “human resource
management”, which emphasized that human resources were assets to
organizations. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Human Relations approach
evolved into the Quality of Work Life (QWL) era. This approach
attempted to satisfy the interests of employees and organizations by
stressing both employee well-being and productivity. For example,
management developed new programs that underscored job
enrichment and career development; in addition, new policies were
designed to improve workers' quality of work life in order to enhance
their satisfaction and commitment to organizations. During this era,
managers also developed programs that focused on labor-management
cooperation and promoted collaborative efforts to improve workers'
quality of work life. The QWL era was facilitated by legislation that
highlighted fair employment practices including Civil Rights Acts
(1964), Occupational Safety and Health Act (1970), and Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974). The passage of these acts,
and the development of new QWL programs, promoted the need for
professional Human Resource managers and new forms of HRM
policies and practices in organizations.
“Strategic HRM”: 1980s to present
All of these above-mentioned changes and challenges prompted the
development of a “new” HRM function (Kochan, Katz, & McKersie,
1986). This new function is much more of a strategic partner in
organizations due to the recognition that human resources are critical
to the functioning of organizations in the service and knowledge
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
economies. In addition, the late 20th century saw an increased reliance
on employee-relations, and HRM was called on to foster a sense of
trust in the relations between managers and workers (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). American organizations began to stress non-unionized HRM
practices and to adopt many of the Japanese management principles
that emphasized employees as critical resources that can give
organizations a competitive advantage. As a result, HRM has evolved
from a “personnel” function to a human relations, then labor relations,
then industrial relations, and most recently strategic HRM function. In
the articles that follow, this evolution of the field is further articulated
in terms of both general and specific events. To set the stage for
examining our roots, Kaufman (2014-in this issue) traces the
development of HRM from the labor problem that surfaced in the 19th
century to the multifaceted strategic HRM/industrial
relations/personnel economics nature of the field today. Similarly De
Nisi, Wilson and Bite man (2014in this issue) review the history of
HRM throughout the 20th century but focus on how this evolution of
the field is characterized in terms of the HR research —practice gap.
In an interesting twist, Boudreau and Lawler (2014-in this issue) trace
the evolution of the field from a perceptual rather than historical
perspective. Based on survey data from HR leaders spanning two
decades, they share their findings regarding the changing role of HRM
based on the evolution of perceptions regarding the progress of the
field of HRM. The next two articles focus on specific issues/problems
that are fundamental to the evolution of our field. Nkomo and Hoobler
(2014-in this issue) explain the shift in HRM with respect to our
societal and thus organizational ideologies regarding “diversity” .As a
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
nation, we've evolved from a “white supremacy” view of diversity that
characterized the early 20th century to an “inclusion” orientation that
emerged in the early 21st century. Gowan (2014-in this issue) focuses
on the history of unemployment research and how we, as a field, have
evolved from a job-loss research focus to a stress focus to, more
recently, a career growth focus. The last article is relevant to our
current reincarnation as a “strategic partner” in organizations today.
Sikora & Ferris (2014-in this issue) propose that the real issue facing
strategic HRM is HR implementation. Using social context factors,
they explain how the success of HRM is not a matter of “strategy” but
rather a focus on the line managers responsible for implementing
those HR strategies .Notably this article focuses on the current
challenges facing the field, which is a nice segue for the second
volume of our special issue which will focus more so on HRM in
terms of the present and future. It is our hope that these special issues
will foster additional research onthe fundamentals of HRM and lead to
a better understanding of the significance and contributions of the
field as a whole.
“Early beginnings”: 1400s–1700s
Historically, HRM probably was the earliest evolved management
function, predating other functions such as finance,accounting, and
marketing. Although unrecorded, the actual managing of human
resources doubtless has occurred since the first organization of people
into functioning units such as tribes. As tribes formed and,
particularly, as they evolved from hunting and then farming, a division
of labor undoubtedly arose with recognition of differing productivity
of individuals. This development was a form of division of labor in
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
which different persons occupied different roles in the productive
society. Craftspersons who could develop tools for farmers and be
supported by the productivity of others engaged in farming doubtless
emerged, and a natural division of labor arose. In short, the
productivity of various crafts and occupations varied, and trade
evolved to takeadvantage of these variations. Whether managed
through the natural functioning of a market and a market allocation
ofproductive roles, or the human resource management of a tribal
leader, the issues of managing human resources emerged. In the late
18th century the Industrial revolution began in Europe and spread to
the U.S. This revolution completely changed the way that individuals
earned a living, and led to a shift from an agricultural to an industrial
or manufacturing society. Human skills and craftwork were replaced
with machines, and the factory system was born (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). Factories and manufacturing greatly improved production, and
altered employment relationships. For instance, these systems
replaced the self-employment independent contractor system and
created permanent wage earners who were employed by
organizations. At the same time, it resulted in the rationalization of
work and another division of labor. Workers who had been skilled
contractors became the tenders of machines and performed highly
specialized routine tasks. The new manufacturing system also created
the need to supervise large numbers of workers, and management
practices tended to be autocratic and paternalistic (Dulebohn et
al.,1995). Management expressed little concern for the safety or
welfare of workers, and workers were controlled with force and fear
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
(Slichter, 1919). This approach to management continued until the end
of the 19th century.
“Personnel”: 1800s
Around 1800, an English factory owner named Robert Owens altered
a number of aspects of the employment relationship and developed
“welfare to work”systems in order to improve both social and working
conditions for workers (Dulebohn et al., 1995).In particular, he taught
that his workers' temperance and cleanliness improved working
conditions, and refused to employ young children ( Davis, 1957). In
some cases, these practices evolved into more elaborate paternalistic
systems where workers were provided with company housing,
company stores, company schools,
apprenticeships, pensions, life and accident insurance, hospitals, and
libraries (Davis, 1957). Welfareto-work systems can be defined as
“anything for the comfort and improvement, intellectual or social, of
the employees, over and above wages paid, which is not a necessity of
the industry or required by law” (U.S. Bureau of Labor, 1919, p. 8).
These new systems were designed to promote good management and
worker relations, increase productivity, and avert worker conflict and
unionization ( Dulebohn et al., 1995). Not surprisingly, these practices
set the stage for many of the employee benefits that are used to attract,
motivate, and retain workers today. They have also become the norm
for many benefit systems in Western nations. In the era following the
civil war (1860s), labormanagement disputes began to occur.
Employers wanted to thwart unions and believed that changes in
working conditions would enhance performance (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). As a result, welfare-towork programs escalated, but these
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
programs were actually designed to benefit businesses not workers. As
these programs grew in scope in the late 1800s, organizations hired
welfare secretaries to administer them, and eventually the role of
welfare secretary evolved into the employment manager and, at a later
point in time, the “personnel manager”. The primary functions of this
role were to hire, fire, discipline, and reward employees, which meant
that line managers no longer had to focus on managing and retaining
the workforce. Many organizations began to enact paternalistic
practices, but some employers were mistreating employees, which led
crafts workers and others to join protection societies later known as
labor unions (Scarpello, 2008). As might be expected ,employers
fought the growth of unions and took a number of steps to curtail
unionization, including court injunctions or forcing applicants to sign
yellow dog contracts indicating that they would not join a union.
“Labor relations/human relations”: 1900s–1970s
With the advent of manufacturing, employers sought ways of
enhancing efficiency and productivity. Engineers (e.g., Frederick
Taylor), Industrial and Organizational Psychologists (e.g., Lillian
Gilbreath), sociologists (e.g., Max Weber), and Management scholars
(e.g., Heny Fayol) focused on strategies for enhancing organizational
efficiency, and developed new approaches to managing workers. For
instance, the Scientific Management approach fostered by Frederick
Taylor (1947) emphasized the rationalization of work by studying the
job scientifically, breaking it down into components, and determining
the one best way to perform the job. This approach diminished worker
autonomy and stressed that employees should be supervised closely to
ensure that they performed the job exactly as expected. At the same
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
time Max Weber (1927) suggested that organizational efficiency could
be improved by using legitimate rules and authority systems. The new
design of jobs and the resultant autocratic management systems
spawned even greater levels of conflict between workers and
organizations. In the 1930s the National Labor Relations Act, the
Norris-LaGuardia Act (1932), the Wagner Act (1935), and other laws
led to the growth of unions. As a result of increased unionization and
use of scientific management principles, personnel departments grew
and focused on job analysis as the basis for employee selection,
training, job evaluation, and compensation. In addition, The Wagner
Act defined the New Deal industrial relations system and “declared
that the goal of public policy was to encourage the practice of
collective bargaining, to eliminate labor's inequality of bargaining
power, and introduce democratic rights of due process to
industry”(Kaufman, 1993, p. 61). In view of these policies, industrial
relations (IR) departments emerged in organizations in order to
manage collective bargaining agreements (Dulebohn et al., 1995).
World War II created an exceptional demand for labor and slowed
temporarily the growth of unions (Dulebohn et al., 1995) .The war
brought wage freezes and prohibited strikes, but following the war
there was an increased need for HRM. The post-war era brought
renewed interest in unions, and workers were determined to recover
their lost wage increases. In addition, federal labor laws and wage
controls created an increased demand for personnel departments. In
addition, the growing power of unions and labor unrest resulted in the
passage of the Taft Hartley Act. The act was designed to equalize
power between labor and management. During the 1940s and 1950s,
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
unions represented 47% of the U. S. labor force, and 95% of
companies had at least one union (Dulebohn et al., 1995). At the same
time, employers began to hire more educated personnel managers
because of the constraints posed by unions and the need to manage
unionized workforces. In the 1930s, employment managers began to
argue that conflict was not inherent in labor relations, but was caused
by poor management and work systems. As a result, researchers
conducted a series of experiments to examine the effects of different
work systems on worker productivity (Roethlisberger & Dickson,
1939). These researchers found that the social elements and workers'
needs had an important impact on the output and workers' well-being.
This new approach was labeled the Human Relations movement, and
emphasized that workers have social needs. The Human Relations
approach broadened the view of HRM beyond the individual and the
job, and stressed the work group and social structures of organizations
(Dulebohn et al., 1995; Scarpello, 2008). In the 1950s, the Human
Relations movement in the field of HRM challenged the assumption
that people did not want to work , and it stressed that human resources
made important contributions to organizations. As a result, the term
“personnel management” was replaced with the label “human resource
management”, which emphasized that human resources were assets to
organizations. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Human Relations approach
evolved into the Quality of Work Life (QWL) era. This approach
attempted to satisfy the interests of employees and organizations by
stressing both employee well-being and productivity. For example,
management developed new programs that underscored job
enrichment and career development; in addition, new policies were
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
designed to improve workers' quality of work life in order to enhance
their satisfaction and commitment to organizations. During this era,
managers also developed programs that focused on labor-management
cooperation and promoted collaborative efforts to improve workers'
quality of work life. The QWL era was facilitated by legislation that
highlighted fair employment practices including Civil Rights Acts
(1964), Occupational Safety and Health Act (1970), and Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974). The passage of these acts,
and the development of new QWL programs, promoted the need for
professional Human Resource managers and new forms of HRM
policies and practices in organizations.
“Strategic HRM”: 1980s to present
All of these above-mentioned changes and challenges prompted the
development of a “new” HRM function (Kochan, Katz, & McKersie,
1986). This new function is much more of a strategic partner in
organizations due to the recognition that human resources are critical
to the functioning of organizations in the service and knowledge
economies. In addition, the late 20th century saw an increased reliance
on employee-relations, and HRM was called on to foster a sense of
trust in the relations between managers and workers (Dulebohn et al.,
1995). American organizations began to stress non-unionized HRM
practices and to adopt many of the Japanese management principles
that emphasized employees as critical resources that can give
organizations a competitive advantage. As a result, HRM has evolved
from a “personnel” function to a human relations, then labor relations,
then industrial relations, and most recently strategic HRM function. In
the articles that follow, this evolution of the field is further articulated
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
in terms of both general and specific events. To set the stage for
examining our roots, Kaufman (2014-in this issue) traces the
development of HRM from the labor problem that surfaced in the 19th
century to the multifaceted strategic HRM/industrial
relations/personnel economics nature of the field today. Similarly De
Nisi, Wilson and Bite man (2014in this issue) review the history of
HRM throughout the 20th century but focus on how this evolution of
the field is characterized in terms of the HR research —practice gap.
In an interesting twist, Boudreau and Lawler (2014-in this issue) trace
the evolution of the field from a perceptual rather than historical
perspective. Based on survey data from HR leaders spanning two
decades, they share their findings regarding the changing role of HRM
based on the evolution of perceptions regarding the progress of the
field of HRM. The next two articles focus on specific issues/problems
that are fundamental to the evolution of our field. Nkomo and Hoobler
(2014-in this issue) explain the shift in HRM with respect to our
societal and thus organizational ideologies regarding “diversity” .As a
nation, we've evolved from a “white supremacy” view of diversity that
characterized the early 20th century to an “inclusion” orientation that
emerged in the early 21st century. Gowan (2014-in this issue) focuses
on the history of unemployment research and how we, as a field, have
evolved from a job-loss research focus to a stress focus to, more
recently, a career growth focus. The last article is relevant to our
current reincarnation as a “strategic partner” in organizations today.
Sikora & Ferris (2014-in this issue) propose that the real issue facing
strategic HRM is HR implementation. Using social context factors,
they explain how the success of HRM is not a matter of “strategy” but
lOMoARcPSD|61746433
rather a focus on the line managers responsible for implementing
those HR strategies .Notably this article focuses on the current
challenges facing the field, which is a nice segue for the second
volume of our special issue which will focus more so on HRM in
terms of the present and future. It is our hope that these special issues
will foster additional research onthe fundamentals of HRM and lead to
a better understanding of the significance and contributions of the
field as a whole.
