and management). According to a curriculum survey (Estey 1960 ), the four core
courses in these industrial relations programs were: labor economics, collective
bargaining, personnel management (and human relations), and labor law. It is fair
to say, however, that the emphasis was on labor–management relations.
The personnel management side of theWeld was not held in high regard during
this time period and did not attract many students. A foundation-sponsored
assessment of American business education in the late 1950 s reached this scathing
conclusion: ‘next to the course in production, perhaps more educational sins have
been committed in the name of personnel management than in any other required
course in the business curriculum’ (Gordon and Howell 1959 : 189 ). Also indicative
is this remembrance of a former student at the Institute of Labor and Industrial
Relations at Illinois (Weber 1987 : 15 ): ‘When I studied at Illinois in 1950 – 1951 , there
were a few students at the institute who were taking personnel; they were de ́classe ́
by deWnition. I would approach these fellows and quizzically ask why they
were going into personnel.... They always gave one of two answers which were
descriptive of theWeld: ( 1 ) ‘‘I did it in the Army,’’ or ( 2 ) ‘‘I like people.’’ ’
2.4 The Development
and Internationalization of
Contemporary HRM
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
In the post-Second World War period HRM in the USA experienced a low point in
its fortunes during the 1960 s. Then theWeld slowly revived and expanded and by
the early to mid- 1990 s was at a new high in energy, activities, and reputation. Yet, as
century’s end neared there were also signs of continued problems and perhaps
some slippage in HRM in both industry and academe. Beginning in the early
1980 s, the modern version of HRM also quickly spread beyond North America and
was transplanted to Europe, Asia, and other parts of the world. The subject is now
taught at universities in all parts of the globe and the term ‘human resource
management,’ either in English or translated into the national language (e.g.
Gestio ́n de Recursos Humanos in Spanish), is increasingly the name companies
everywhere use to label their people management function.
The ‘doldrums’ experienced by HRM in the 1960 s had several sources. I focus on
the academic end. As previously described, HRM was through the 1950 s subsumed
as part of industrial relations. After 1960 , however, the twoWelds gradually drifted
apart with IR more narrowly focused on unions and labor–management relations
and HRM on the functional parts of employee management. Accompanying the
32 b r u c e e. k a u f m a n