This paper examines the evolving role of Human Resource Management (HRM) from its origins in late 19th-century personnel administration to its emerging function as a cultural steward within modern organizations. Drawing on the historical influence of scientific management, behavioral and humanistic psychology, and contemporary research, the paper explores how HRM shapes and sustains organizational culture, facilitates work-life balance, and navigates the challenges of diversity training. It also surveys competing expert visions for the future of HRM, including the strategic partnership model and a renewed focus on championing employee needs and aspirations.
The paper demonstrates effective synthesis across a wide range of sources — historical texts, organizational psychology research, practitioner literature, and journalistic reporting — to build a coherent narrative about HRM's expanding scope. Rather than merely summarizing each source in sequence, the writer weaves them into a chronological and thematic argument, showing how each development (scientific management, humanistic psychology, diversity initiatives) responds to the limitations of what came before.
The paper opens with definitions of HRM and organizational culture, then moves through a chronological history of the field. Subsequent sections shift to normative and practical concerns: how organizations cultivate culture, how employees are supported through cultural change, and whether diversity training delivers measurable results. The paper closes with expert forecasts for HRM's future, ending on an appropriately open-ended note given genuine disagreement in the field. Each section builds logically on the last, making the argument easy to follow across its broad scope.
Human Resource Management can be described as "the comprehensive set of managerial activities and tasks concerned with developing and maintaining a qualified workforce — human resources — in ways that contribute to organizational effectiveness" (DeNisi & Griffin, 2004).
Organizational culture consists of shared beliefs and values established by leaders and then communicated and reinforced through various methods, ultimately shaping employee perceptions, behaviors, and understanding. Simply put, a company's structure and design can be viewed as its body, and its culture as its soul (Neal, Cossack, & Collis, 2008, p. 34).
The history of HRM in the United States may be said to have started when the NCR Corporation established a separate personnel office in the 1890s. This occurred, in part, because the corporation had reached such a size that specialization was the rational course of action. American values and American life in that period also played a role. The values of individualism and free-enterprise capitalism were strong. The workforce was mobile and contained many immigrants. All of these factors led to an impersonal, task-oriented relationship little colored by the values of paternalism and obligation that are more common in societies with a feudal heritage. Apprentice systems and labor unions had not spread into the new-style corporations, so employers had few constraints on hiring and firing decisions. The hiring of new employees could be done objectively, based on criteria relevant to the job to be accomplished. Employees were a factor of production whose costs were to be managed as rationally as any other input. The task of those pioneer personnel managers at NCR was to establish a method by which they could best discern, among a large and diverse applicant pool, the individuals who would make efficient and cost-effective employees (Pieper, 1990).
Scientific management, which Frederick Winslow Taylor introduced in 1912, was clearly attuned to the needs and values of the American industrial revolution. Taylorism met the demand of employers to efficiently utilize a larger labor pool containing many immigrants. Employees could be easily trained and as easily replaced for the routine, repetitive tasks prescribed by Taylor. The theory was immensely successful during the period when industry was straining to meet the production demands of World War I. By the 1920s, Taylorism began to lose its preeminence as a theory, though remnants of the practice still exist in some American organizations. Job analysis, which is very much a part of modern HRM, is one of its lasting legacies. Perhaps the most important legacy of Taylorism is that it made science the hallmark of HRM in that early stage of its development (Pieper, 1990).
In the decades that followed, through all the schools of HRM that have come and gone, one consistent factor remained: the belief that the selection and motivation of a workforce is an endeavor amenable to objective, rational, and testable criteria. This belief permeates the field of HRM today and traces directly back to its roots in the needs and values of American society a century ago.
The second key hallmark of American HRM is the linking of personnel management theory and practice with the field of psychology. The relevance of psychological tools was demonstrated by the famous Hawthorne experiments conducted by Elton Mayo of the Harvard School of Business Administration between 1927 and 1932. In the 1950s, the term "human resource management" began to be used to designate the expansion of traditional personnel management to include modern psychology (Pieper, 1990).
The development of HRM has been influenced predominantly by two schools of psychology. Behaviorism is a uniquely American branch of psychology that traces to the work of John B. Watson, a contemporary of Taylor. Watson believed that the study of human behavior could be objective and scientific. The work of behaviorists led to the development of tests and evaluation methods that are so much a part of modern HRM. Humanistic psychology is the other school that has influenced American HRM. It began in the 1930s, when Abraham Maslow broke with behaviorism and launched a "third force" in American psychology (Pieper, 1990).
Maslow was extremely influential in shaping the human relations theory of HRM, which gained popularity in the 1950s. Maslow's hierarchy of human needs is known by every HRM practitioner, and its relevance for the profession is unmatched. Humanistic psychology holds that employees can no longer be regarded as replaceable parts of the production process. Employees have needs for security, self-expression, communication, and recognition that employers must meet in order to achieve a stable and productive workforce. Goble (1971) notes that a 1969 survey of 302 companies found that 80% acknowledged the importance of psychology to productivity and profitability (Pieper, 1990).
By the 1970s, the human resource approach emerged as the latest development, combining elements of earlier theories. Employees were now perceived as a resource whose needs are compatible with the needs of the organization. HRM came to be defined as "that area of organization life that focuses on the effective management and utilization of people" (Walters, 1985, p. 4).
HRM today is a far more scientific and broader field than it was at NCR a hundred years ago. HRM has moved into a central role in modern organizations, placing tremendous pressure on its practitioners. Recruitment, job analysis, training and development, human resource planning, management succession planning, designing cost-effective benefit packages, managing employee harassment programs, and dealing with employee privacy rights — to name but a few — are all tasks the modern HRM department must undertake (Pieper, 1990).
A supportive workplace culture has been associated with a variety of benefits for both employees and employers, including higher levels of affective commitment to the organization, lower intention to leave, higher levels of job satisfaction, lower levels of stress, and less conflict between work and family responsibilities (Workplace culture, 2009).
In addition to these direct positive effects, perceptions of a supportive workplace culture are associated with greater utilization of work-life balance policies. Culture is crucial in determining whether employees will actually use available policies and shapes their general attitudes toward the organization. For employees and employers to enjoy the benefits of work-life balance policies, culture and the work environment must be addressed when implementing such policies.
Simply offering policies is not sufficient — employees need to feel comfortable using them. Both managers and colleagues can make employees feel uncomfortable taking advantage of available benefits. Family-friendly policies will be useless or counterproductive if the work culture does not support them (Workplace culture, 2009).
The development and implementation of policies is a gradual process that requires addressing certain behaviors, attitudes, and expectations held by employees and management alike.
It is vitally important that both senior and middle management actively support the development of culture change. Visible support from senior management is crucial to the effective introduction of work and family policies. Managers who champion a traditional organizational culture — one that emphasizes the pursuit of work goals while ignoring employees' personal lives — undermine the success of work-life balance policies (Workplace culture, 2009).
Middle and line managers are particularly important in the development process, as they are more directly in contact with the everyday work environment of employees. Implementation of policies will be more effective if line managers are convinced of the need for them and understand why the policies are introduced and how they will improve organizational performance.
An important issue to address when developing a workplace culture is the set of organizational characteristics that reflect and reinforce that culture. Chief among these are the organization's key values and norms (Workplace culture, 2009).
It is important for organizations to think carefully about what messages their existing structures and practices send to employees. For example, some organizations communicate key values through their reward systems. Organizations that provide rewards based purely on the number of hours worked — rather than on outputs and performance — may inadvertently discourage the use of work-life balance policies.
Organizations might also consider including a statement of commitment to work-life balance in their core value statements. Embedding this commitment formally may help reinforce work-life balance as a genuine organizational priority.
An organization that develops and maintains a strong organizational culture may realize benefits such as enhanced mutual trust and cooperation, fewer disagreements, more efficient decision-making, an informal control mechanism, facilitation of open communication, a strong sense of identification, and a shared understanding. Research suggests that, for a culture to improve overall organizational performance, it must be strong, must provide a strategic competitive advantage, and must have its beliefs and values widely shared and firmly upheld (Neal et al., 2008).
Finally, regardless of whether definitive evidence links culture to effectiveness, valuing different viewpoints and styles and developing concrete ways to facilitate organizational learning from differences can maximize the quality of organizational structures, procedures, and processes (Neal et al., 2008, p. 34).
Organizations can also give visibility to high performers who make active use of work-life balance policies, demonstrating that success and balance can go hand in hand. Social functions scheduled at times suitable for families — and to which employees' family members are explicitly invited — can further reinforce a culture of inclusion. Introducing awards for managers nominated by employees for supporting both work productivity and personal wellbeing can also signal organizational commitment. Similarly, recognizing employees who are playing an important role in cultural change — through award ceremonies or other public acknowledgment — reinforces the value of these efforts. Finally, allowing employees to personalize their workspaces with photographs or other personal objects is a small but meaningful gesture (Workplace culture, 2009).
Developing and valuing a workplace culture does not happen overnight and requires genuine commitment from both employers and employees. Building consensus for culture change must happen from the top down as well as the bottom up. Education about the importance of work-life balance, the benefits of relevant policies, and the enabling role of workplace culture is necessary to convince both managers and front-line employees of the importance of a supportive culture (Workplace culture, 2009).
There has always been a tremendous amount of controversy over the term "diversity training" and just how effective it is. There is also much debate over what "diversity" itself really means, and not all are in favor of such training programs. TIME magazine published a significant article describing a study which concluded that diversity training had no measurable effect — more on that below. Equally, there are studies that reach the opposite conclusion and praise the effectiveness of sensitizing people to cultural and ethnic differences.
Many companies hold training sessions regularly to ensure employees are current on diversity issues. Demonstrating attunement to diversity and maintaining programs to prevent racial, sexual, cultural, or ethnic harassment has become an organizational imperative.
Critical Measures, a company specializing in diversity training, defines diversity as follows:
"Diversity includes, but goes well beyond, race and gender. To us, diversity includes age and generational differences, disability, religion, language, national origin, culture and cultural norms, marital status, sexual orientation, union and non-union, differences in personality style and many other characteristics. In short, diversity is any difference that can make a difference at work." (Our approach to diversity training, n.d., para. 1)
The central debate is whether diversity training makes people more or less sensitive to difference. Does keeping it "on the front burner" improve or worsen the situation? When mandatory diversity training in the workplace encompasses marital status, personality differences, and union status, has it gone too far — or not far enough? Is HRM overstepping its role? Are such programs bringing people together to understand cultural differences, or forcing everyone's beliefs onto everyone else? Experts and studies present evidence on both sides.
Critical Measures argues that "new research shows that most human bias is unconscious. Teaching people about the nature of bias helps them move beyond guilt to understanding. We discuss how personal, cultural and organizational biases can affect recruitment, hiring and retention decisions and practices."
TIME magazine, however, reported the findings of a major decades-long study in starkly different terms:
"A groundbreaking new study by three sociologists shows that diversity training has little to no effect on the racial and gender mix of a company's top ranks. Frank Dobbin of Harvard, Alexandra Kalev of the University of California, Berkeley, and Erin Kelly of the University of Minnesota sifted through decades of federal employment statistics provided by companies. Their analysis found no real change in the number of women and minority managers after companies began diversity training. That's right — none." (Hutchens, 2007, para. 2)
Social psychologists offer several theories as to why diversity training fails to work as intended. Research indicates that any mandatory training can generate a backlash, and that mandatory diversity training in particular may actually activate the very biases it aims to reduce (Hutchens, 2007).
You’re 64% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.