models of hrm
Human Resource Management I
The history of human resource management has reflected prevailing beliefs and attitudes held in society about employees, the response of employers to public policy (for example, health and safety and employment standards legislation) and reactions to trade union growth. In the early stages of the Industrial Revolution in Britain, the extraordinary codes of discipline and fines imposed by factory owners were, in part, a response to the serious problem of imposing standards of discipline and regularity on an untrained workforce (Mathias, 1969).
In Britain and North America increasing numbers of employers were accepting responsibility for the general welfare of their workers in the 1890s. In Britain, a number of philanthropic employers began to develop a paternalistic care and concern for their employees. From the 1890s Quaker employers, for example, Cadbury and Rowntree, began to emphasize welfare by appointing 'industrial welfare ' workers and building model factory villages. It was estimated that by 1914 there were probably between 60 and 70 welfare workers in Britain (Farnham, 1990).
In the USA, Henry Ford 's autoplant, for example, established a 'Sociological Department ' to administer personnel policies which were a concomitant of the '$5 a day ' remuneration package. In 1900, large German companies like Krupp and Seimens were highly paternalistic (Littler, 1982). Over time, industrial welfare workers developed into the modern personnel/human resource management specialist.
World War I (1914–18) gave an added impetus to industrial welfare activities. To deal with the haemorrhage of skilled labour, many women were induced to enter industry for the first time. One outcome of this shift in employment was greater concern for workers ' welfare in industrial work. By 1918 about 1000 women supervisors had been appointed to observe and regulate the conditions of work and, based upon experiments during World War I, the
The history of human resource management has reflected prevailing beliefs and attitudes held in society about employees, the response of employers to public policy (for example, health and safety and employment standards legislation) and reactions to trade union growth. In the early stages of the Industrial Revolution in Britain, the extraordinary codes of discipline and fines imposed by factory owners were, in part, a response to the serious problem of imposing standards of discipline and regularity on an untrained workforce (Mathias, 1969).
In Britain and North America increasing numbers of employers were accepting responsibility for the general welfare of their workers in the 1890s. In Britain, a number of philanthropic employers began to develop a paternalistic care and concern for their employees. From the 1890s Quaker employers, for example, Cadbury and Rowntree, began to emphasize welfare by appointing 'industrial welfare ' workers and building model factory villages. It was estimated that by 1914 there were probably between 60 and 70 welfare workers in Britain (Farnham, 1990).
In the USA, Henry Ford 's autoplant, for example, established a 'Sociological Department ' to administer personnel policies which were a concomitant of the '$5 a day ' remuneration package. In 1900, large German companies like Krupp and Seimens were highly paternalistic (Littler, 1982). Over time, industrial welfare workers developed into the modern personnel/human resource management specialist.
World War I (1914–18) gave an added impetus to industrial welfare activities. To deal with the haemorrhage of skilled labour, many women were induced to enter industry for the first time. One outcome of this shift in employment was greater concern for workers ' welfare in industrial work. By 1918 about 1000 women supervisors had been appointed to observe and regulate the conditions of work and, based upon experiments during World War I, the
References: Parties to industrial relations The employee relationship is traditionally described as a tripartite relationship between employers, employees and the state (Farnham & Pimlott; 1996)