HRM faced a stark choice of ‘transform or die.’ A number of articles, for example,
appeared with titles such as ‘Repositioning the Human Resource Management
Function: Transformation or Demise?’ (Schuler 1990 ). Also illustrative is the article
by David Ulrich in theHarvard Business Review( 1998 ). He states ( 1998 : 124 ),
‘Should we do away with HR?... there is good reason for HR’s beleaguered
reputation. It is often ineVective, incompetent, and costly; in a phrase, it is value
sapping. Indeed if HR were to remain conWgured as it is today in many companies,
I would have to answer the question above with a resounding ‘‘yes—abolish the
thing!’’ ’ Ulrich’s statement suggests that despite all the much ballyhooed emphasis
on HRM as a strategic business partner, in many companies the function (appar-
ently) remains not much diVerent from the low-level, administrative version so
often criticized in the past. One could also easily read this statement and reach the
mistaken conclusion that the function/practice of HRM is equivalent to the staV
and activities of the HRM department. The two, however, are quite distinct (if
overlapping), as recognized by writers from the earliest days of theWeld.
Before ending I want to brieXy discuss the movement of modern HRM outside
North America. To give this topic the coverage it deserves, however, would require
another chapter.
Through the 1960 s and 1970 s the subject and practice of personnel management
had a secure if small and relatively low-status position in business Wrms and
universities outside of North America. In Britain and Australia, for example,
personnel courses were oVered in universities as part of a commerce program
and a small number of personnel texts were available. The subject, however,
suVered from both an overall neglect of management as an academic discipline
and the dominant position of industrial relations and collective bargaining (Wood
1983 ; Bacon 2003 ; Kelly 2003 ). But the situation markedly changed in the 1980 s and
early 1990 s, not only in these countries but many others, and opened the door for
contemporary HRM to enter. Relevant factors include: growing national interest in
new management methods to stimulate productivity, industrial performance, and
competitive advantage in the world economy; the swing in public opinion and
national economic policy—epitomized by the coming to power of the Thatcher
government in the UK—away from labor collectivism and toward a neo-liberal
policy of open markets and individualized employment relations; the widespread
perception that American management methods were ‘best practice’ and thus to be
imported and emulated; the beginning of American-style professional business
schools; and a new research program on management by a small set of industrial
relations scholars. At this time the Japanese were also opening up new plants in
Britain and elsewhere with their own version of HRM and this further heightened
interest in the subject.
Although personnel slowly gave way to HRM in America over a twenty-year
period beginning in the mid- 1960 s, the switch-over was more sudden and contro-
versial in a number of other countries. I focus on Britain and Australia. In Britain
the development of hrm 39