come from a published lecture given several years earlier by economist E. Wight
Bakke entitled ‘The Human Resources Function’ ( 1958 ), although as noted the
phrase ‘human resources’ has an earlier origin. It is worthwhile to quote Bakke’s
conception of the human resources function for it bears on later debates about the
meaning of the term. He states ( 1958 : 5 – 6 , emphasis in original), ‘The general type
of activity in any function of management... is to use resources eVectively for
an organizational objective... The function which is related to the understanding,
maintenance, development, eVective employment, and integration of the potential
in the resource ‘people’ I shall call simplythe human resources function.’ He also
states ( 1958 : 4 , emphasis in original), ‘TheWrst thing that we ought to be clear on is
that there is nothing new about the managerial function of dealing with people....
Like other sub-functions of management... it has beencarved out ofthegeneral
managerial function, notput intoit.’
For the nextWfteen to twenty years the terms personnel management and human
resource management largely coexisted and were often used interchangeably, albeit
with some sentiment that HRM reXected a more up-to-date terminology and
conception of the people management function. But then, starting in the early
1980 s, two separate lines of thought developed. TheWrst followed tradition and
argued that HRM and PM were largely diVerent labels for the same subject. But
according to a second line of thought, the HRM term represented a new model and
philosophy of people management that was fundamentally diVerent from the
traditional approach of PM and IR.
An early and inXuential expression of this position was by Harvard management
professor Michael Beer and colleagues in the bookManaging Human Assets( 1984 )
and by Beer and co-author Bert Spector in an article entitled ‘Human Resource
Management: The Integration of Industrial Relations and Organizational Devel-
opment.’ In the book and article they describe what is called ‘a new HRM
paradigm.’ In their article they list fourteen characteristics that distinguish
the traditional employment management model, which they identify as ‘industrial
relations’ (including personnel), from the new paradigm they label ‘human
resource management.’ For example, they claim IR/PM are reactive, piecemeal,
part of a command and control employment system, mediators of conXicting
interests, and take a short-term perspective; HRM on the other hand is proactive,
integrative, part of an employee commitment and participation system, creator of
a unity of interest, and takes a long-term perspective. They summarize the new
HRM paradigm as reXecting ( 1984 : 292 ) ‘the emerging view that people are an asset
and not a cost’ and ‘an HR function fully aware of and involved in all strategic and
business decisions’ ( 1984 : 293 ).
Where did this second conception of HRM come from? Two intellectual devel-
opments were key.
TheWrst, as suggested by the title of Beer and Spector’s article, is the melding of
theories and insights from OB/OD into traditional IR/PM. This process began in
34 b r u c e e. k a u f m a n