Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Management
HUMAN PERITUS
www.humanperitus.com
Human Resource Management
TABLE OF CONTENTS
The term Human Resource Development (HRD) provides conceptual umbrella under which the field began to unify
using three-fold notion of Training, Education and Development. The HRD concept was first introduced by Leonard
Nadler in 1969 in US. He published his book "Developing Human Resources".
Thus, the HRD is a part of HRM. The HRD focuses on training and development only while HRM covers all aspects
of Human Resources at a firm.
According to Michael Armstrong, Human Resource Management is defined as a strategic and coherent approach
to the management of an organization’s most valued assets – the people working there, who individually and
collectively contribute to the achievement of its objectives. Michael Armstrong introduced the phrase “HRM is
regarded by some personnel managers as just a set of initials or old wine in a new bottle".
In the words of Edwin B. Flippo, Human Resource Management is the planning, organization, directing and
controlling of the procurement, development, compensation, integration, maintenance and separation of human
resources to the end that individual, organizational and societal objectives are accomplished.
According to National Institute of Personnel Management of India, Personnel management (or Human
Resource Management) is that part of management concerned with people at work and with their relationship
within the organization. It seeks to bring men and women who make up an enterprise, enabling each to make his/her
own best contribution to its success both as an individual and as a member of a working group.
John Storey defined Human Resource Management as a distinctive approach to employment management, which
seeks to achieve competitive advantage through the strategic deployment of a highly committed and capable
workforce, using an integrated array of cultural, structural and personal techniques.
Patricia McLagan defined HRD as the integrated use of training and development, organization development and
career development to improve individual, group and organizational effectiveness.
Leonard Nadler defined HRD as those learning experiences which are organized, for a specific time, and designed
to bring about the possibility of behavioral change.
In the words of Prof. T.V. Rao, HRD is a process by which the employees of an organisation are helped in a
continuous and planned way to
(i) Acquire or sharpen their capabilities required to perform various functions associated with their present or
expected future roles;
(ii) Develop their general capabilities as individual and discover and exploit their own inner potential for their
own and /or organisational development purposes;
(iii) Develop an organisational culture in which superior-subordinate relationship, team work and collaboration
among sub-units are strong and contribute to the professional well-being, motivation and pride of employees.
According to M.M. Khan, Human Resource Development is the across of increasing knowledge, skills,
capabilities and positive work attitudes and value of all people working at all levels in a business undertaking."
Evolution of HRM
Human Resource Management has evolved considerably over the past century. The evolution of Human Resource
Management can be broadly divided into four schools of thought as given below:
It is also called "Michigan model" and was propounded by Fombrun Tichy and Devanna (1984) at the Michigan
Business School. They also named this model a "Matching model of HRM".
Precisely, the matching aspect of this model demonstrates that the model is inclined towards the harder side of HRM.
This is because the matching model emphasizes more on “tight fit” between the HR strategy and the business strategy.
It demands that available human resources must be matched with jobs in the organization. Business strategy takes the
central stage in this model, hence human resources are taken like any other resource which must be fully utilised
together with the other resources to achieve organizational objectives.
The analytical framework of the Harvard model consists of six basic components namely situational factors,
stakeholder interests, HRM policy choices, HR outcomes, long-term consequences and a feedback loop via which the
output flows directly into the organization and to the stakeholders. This model focuses more on the human/soft side of
HRM. This is because this model emphasizes more on the fact that employees like any other shareholder are equally
important in influencing organizational outcomes. It is thus important to note that the Harvard model is premised on
the belief that it is the organization’s human resources that give competitive advantage through treating them as assets
and not costs.
This model emphasizes on the assumption that HR manager has specific strategies to begin with, which demand certain
practices and when executed will result in outcomes. The model emphasizes the logical sequence of six components:
HR strategy, HR practices, HR outcomes, Behavioural outcomes, Performance results and financial consequences.
A distinction was made by John Storey (1989) between the ‘Hard’ and ‘Soft’ versions of HRM.
The Hard version of HRM emphasizes that people are important resources through which organizations achieve
competitive advantage. These resources have to be acquired, developed and deployed in ways that will benefit the
organization. The focus is on the quantitative, calculative and business-strategic aspects of managing human resources
in as ‘rational’ a way as for any other economic factor. It is a philosophy that appeals to management who are striving
to increase competitive advantage and appreciate that, to do this they must invest in human resources as well as new
technology.
The Soft version of HRM traces its roots to the human-relations school; it emphasizes communication, motivation and
leadership. As described by Storey it involves ‘treating employee as valued assets, a source of competitive advantage
through their commitment, adaptability and high quality. Treat people as ends unto themselves rather than as means to
an end. The soft approach to HRM stresses the need to gain the commitment – the ‘hearts and minds’ – of employees
through involvement, communication and other methods of developing a high-commitment, high-trust organization.
Approach to HRD
There are many approaches to Human Resource Development:
Pareek and Rao also outlined a philosophy for a new HR system. They outlined 14 principles to be kept in mind in
designing the HRD System. Some of these principles include:
1. HRD systems should help the company to increase enabling capabilities.
2. HRD systems should help individuals to recognize their potential and help them to contribute their best
towards the various organizational roles.
3. HRD systems should help maximize individual autonomy through increased responsibility;
4. HRD systems should facilitate decentralization through delegation and shared responsibility;
5. HRD systems should facilitate participative decision making
6. HRD system should attempt to balance the current organizational culture with changing culture;
7. There should be a continuous review and renewal of the function.
In sum, the Integrated HRD systems approach of Pareek and Rao (1975) has the following elements:
(i) A separate and differentiated HRD department with full time HRD staff.
(ii) 6 HRD subsystems including Organizational Development,
(iii) Interlinkages between the various subsystems,
(iv) Designed with 14 principles in mind, and
(v) Linked to other subsystems of Human Resource Function.
After L&T accepted these recommendations in full and started implementing, the State Bank of India, the single largest
Indian Bank and its Associates have decided to use the Integrated HRD systems approach and decided to create new
HRD Department. Since then, a large number of organizations in India have established HRD Departments.
The issues are not always clear-cut. For example, in Heinz’s dilemma, the protection of life is more important
than breaking the law against stealing.
Stage 6: Universal Principles. People at this stage have developed their own set of moral guidelines which
may or may not fit the law. The principles apply to everyone.
E.g., human rights, justice, and equality. The person will be prepared to act to defend these principles even if
it means going against the rest of society in the process and having to pay the consequences of disapproval and
or imprisonment. Kohlberg doubted few people reached this stage.
The Workers’ Participation in Management, WPM can be dated as far back as 1920 when Mahatma Gandhi suggested
participation of workers in management on the ground that workers contributed labour and brains while shareholders
contributed money to the enterprise and that both should, therefore, share in its property. It was at his instance that, in
1920, the workers and the employers in Ahmedabad Textile Industry agreed to settle their disputes by Joint Workers’
Councils.
First major step in the direction of workers’ participation in management in India was the enactment of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 with the dual purpose of prevention and settlement of industrial disputes.
The Industrial Policy Resolution, 1948 advocated WPM by suggesting that labour should be in all matters concerning
industrial production.
Article 43 A of the Constitution of India has provided for WPM in these words:
The State shall take steps, by suitable legislation, or in any other way, to secure the participa-tion of workers in
management of undertakings, establishments or other organisations engaged in an industry.
The First Five-Year Plan and the successive plans emphasised the need for workers’ participation in management. The
Second Five Year Plan, accordingly, provides for Joint Managanent Councils, consisting of management, technicians
and workers in large establishments in organised industries.
The Sixth Plan was also in favour of workers participation in management. It stated that workers participation in
management should be an integral part of the industrial relations system. Workers Participation should transform the
attitude of employers and workers and establish a co-operative culture and a stable industrial base. It is necessary to
provide training facilities to workers and managerial personnel so as to motivate them in making the scheme of workers
participation a success.
Works Committees
The Royal Commission on Labour (1929-31) said: “We believe that if these committees (works committees) are given
proper encouragement and the past errors are avoided they can play a useful role in the Indian industrial system”. These
recommendations could, however, be translated into law only in 1947.
As per Section 3 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Works Committee shall be constituted:
In case, 100 or more workmen are employed or have been employed on any day in the preceding 12 months,
the appropriate Government may require the employer to constitute a "Works Committee".
The number of representatives of workmen shall not be less than the number of representatives of the employer.
It shall be the duty of the Works Committee to promote measures for securing and preserving amity and good
relations between the employer and workmen
The Indian Labour Conference in its 17th session held in 1959 discussed the functions of the works committee and
approved a list of functions which could be assigned to the works committees and a list of functions which should not
be assigned to the works committees. It will be useful to look at the illustrative lists drawn up by the Indian Labour
Conference: -
b) Items which the works committees should NOT normally deal with:
i) Wages and allowances.
ii) Bonus and profit sharing schemes
iii) Rationalisation and matters connected with the fixation of workloads.
iv) Matters connected with the fixation of the standard labour force.
v) Programmes of planning and development.
vi) Matters connected with retrenchment and lay-off.
vii) Victimisation for trade union activities.
The above recommendations were accepted by 15th Indian Labour Conference, ILC held in July 1957. The Conference
appointed a 12 member sub-committee to look into further details of the scheme. The recommendations made by the
sub-committee were discussed in a “Seminar on Labour-Management Co-operation” held in New Delhi on January 31
and February 1, 1958. It drew up a “Draft Model Agreement” between labour and management for the establishment
of the Joint Management Councils (JMCs) which would have the following three sets of functions:
First, to fulfill its functions as an advisory body.
Second, to receive information on certain matters.
Third, to fulfill administrative responsibilities.
The National Commission on Labour (1966-69), which reviewed the working of the JMCs, observed that there was not
much support for the institutions of the JMCs. The Commission held the view that “when the system of recognition of
Trade Unions becomes an accepted practice both management and unions would themselves gravitate towards greater
cooperation and set up JMCs”.
A committee set up by the Government on the suggestion of the Assam Government made further recommendations in
relations to the JMCs in public sector undertakings.
The beginning of these joint committees can be traced back to 1920 when the Government of India constituted joint
committees in Govt. printing presses. A similar joint committee was formed by TATA in the TATA Iron & Steel Works,
Jamshedpur. A joint committee was constituted in the Carnatik Mill in Madras in 1922.
Following the recommendations of the Administrative Reforms Commission, the Government of India accepted the
inclusion of the representatives of workers on the Board of Directors of Public Sector Undertakings. Following this,
the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provi-sions) Scheme 1970 also provided for the appointment
of worker director to their Board. One director was from among employees (who are workmen) and another from
among officers for tenure of 3 years.
Thus up to July 1975, there had been three forms of workers’ participation in management introduced in India: Works
Committees, Joint Management Councils and Workers-Directors (public sector) on Boards of Directors.
In the year 1975, the Government formulated a scheme of workers’ participation in industry at Shop Council and Joint
Councils. The scheme was to be implemented in the first instance in enterprises in the manufacturing and mining
industries, whether these were in the public, private or cooperative sector or departmentally run units irrespective of
whether joint consultative machineries had been set up and were functioning in them. The scheme was applicable to
such units as were employing 500 or more workers.
Shop Council: The scheme provided for setting up of shop councils at the shop/departmental levels and joint councils
at the enterprise levels. Each council was to consist of an equal number of representatives of employers and workers.
The employers’ representatives were required to be nominated by the management from among the persons employed
in the unit concerned and all representatives of workers were required to be from amongst the workers engaged in the
shop or department concerned. The employer was expected to set up the council in consultation with the recognised
union or various registered Trade Unions or workers as that would be appropriate in the local conditions.
The employer was to determine the number of members in each council, but he had to take the decision in consultation
with the unions. Decisions were to be based on consensus, and not by a process of voting, and a decision once taken
was required to be implemented within one month. The shop councils were required to meet as frequently as necessary,
and at least once in a month. Each Shop Council was supposed to work for 2 years.
Joint Councils: Similarly Joint Councils were required to be set up for each plant covered under the scheme. The chief
executive of the unit was to be the chairman. The vice chairman was to be nominated by the worker members of the
council. The joint council was to meet at least once in a quarter.
The functions included not merely discussing production and productivity, achieving efficiency, eliminating wastage,
arresting absenteeism, ensuring safety measures etc. but also the physical condition of workings, and welfare measures.
The Councils were also expected to ensure a two way flow of communication between the management and the workers.
The Council could also make creative suggestions for improving the skills of workers, and providing adequate facilities
for training.
The scheme was to cover organisations employing 100 or more persons in these activities. However, the
organisations/services desiring to apply this scheme to units with lesser employment were free to do so. Under this
scheme, unit councils and the joint councils were to be set up. The objective was to promote confidence between the
workers and the management, which it was believed would in turn promote the active involvement of the workers and
secure greater satisfaction and better customer service through improved work processes. The functions of the unit
councils and joint councils under this scheme were almost similar to those laid down under the 1975 scheme, with the
exception that in the new scheme emphasis was also laid on discipline, elimination of pilferage and all forms of
corruption.
While both the schemes i.e. of 1975 and 1977 initially generated considerable enthusiasm with large number of
organisations setting up such forums, there was sharp decline in the number of units/enterprises having shop and joint
councils after 1979. Apart from the on going controversy about the criteria for determining representation at the
participative forum, the exclusion of grievance redressal, the restrictions imposed on consideration of work related
issues, the inadequate sharing of information, the lack of a supportive participative culture, the indifference of the
management, the involvement of second rung union officialdom contributed to the ineffective functioning of many
forums and their eventual decline.
Sachar Committee
In June 1977, the Janata Party Government set up a High-powered Expert Committee on Companies and MRTP Acts
under the chairmanship of Rajender Sachar. The Committee was asked to consider the provisions of the Companies
Act and MRTP Act and to suggest measures by which workers' participation in the share capital and management of
companies can be brought about. The report was submitted in 1978. The main recommendations of the Committee
were:
(1) The workers' participation should be limited to companies which employ 1,000 or more employees
(excluding causal or badli workers).
(2) Such participation at the Board level should be introduced if at least 51 per cent of the workers voted in a
secret vallot in favour of such participation.
(3) Before fixing the proportion of Worker Director on the Board, more detailed consideration should be given
to the issue by the Central Government.
(4) The Worker Director must be from amongst workmen employed by the Company and not an outsider.
Verma Committee
The Janata Government was keen about the effective implementation of the scheme of labour participation in
management. It, therefore, set up another Committee in September 1977, under the Chairmanship of Rabindra Verma,
the then Union Minister for Labour, to recommend an outline of a comprehensive scheme for workers' participation
and to recommend the manner in which the concept of trusteeship in industry and participation of workers in equity
can be given a practical shape in a scheme of workers' participation. Main Recommendations of the Committee:
(1) Adoption of three-tier system of participation, viz., at the shop, plant and corporate or board level.
(2) Legislation on workers' participation covering all undertakings employing 400 or more workers.
(3) There should be provision for extending the scheme to units employing at least 100 workers.
(4) The representatives at the participative forums should be elected through secret ballot.
(5) The issue of equity should be optional.
(6) Supervisor and middle management should have representation in the participative forums.
(7) At the shop level, the participative arrangement should cover common production facilities, storage
facilities, materials economy, errors in documents, operational problems, wastage control, safety problems,
quality improvement, monthly production programmes, technological innovation in the shop, etc.
(8) At the plant level, the participation should be enlarged to cover areas such as operations, economies,
finance, personnel, welfare measures and environment.
(9) At the corporate levels, issues relating to finance, wage structure, fringe and other benefits, housing,
medical facilities, overall recruitment and personnel policies, etc. should be covered.
(10) An agency should be set up at the Central and State levels for monitoring the implementation of the
scheme of workers' participation.
Workers’ Participation in Management Scheme
The Government accepted the recommendations made by the 21-Member Committee on Workers’ Participation in
Management and Equity. Based on a review of the working of the various schemes of workers’ participation in
management and experiences so gamed the Government formulated and notified a new comprehensive scheme on a
voluntary basis for ‘Workers’ Participation in Management’ on 30th December, 1983. The salient features of the
scheme were:
1. The scheme will be non-legislative.
2. It will apply to all central public sector enterprises, expect those specifically exempted.
3. It envisaged constitution of bipartite forums at shop and plant levels.
4. The mode of representation of workers representatives was to be determined by consulta-tion with the
concerned unions.
5. A wide range of work related issues were brought within the ambit of the councils.
However, a host of constraints such as multiplicity of unions, inter-union rivalry, lack of proper knowledge on the part
of workers about the scheme, etc., served as stumbling blocks in the successful working of the scheme.