The Role and Functions of Human Resource - Essay Example

Human Resource Models Critical discussion of the Pre- Ulrich Situation In pre-Ulrich situation, the functions of human resource were based on a one way management system. At the organizational level, it was the only aspect recognized to influence and executes power over managerial work (Tyson, 1987: 525). Most of the organizations involved in pre- Ulrich situation consisted of one team that carried out the role of specialists, generalists, and administration. This type of personnel management brings about manipulation to an extent that, people believe that it is only the managerial team under that management, which can translate and explain the economic symbols such as the economic cost and profits. Other organization members cannot, therefore, have a say on what they see being appropriate in the fear that it will contradict the decisions of the personnel specialist (Cipd, 2013: 8). Furthermore, it is believed that personnel specialists are the only organizational members that can bring an impact into the organization since they are believed to possess an occupational identity that is accorded a professional status. In contrary, most of the individuals that form the personnel management team have very little specialized skills. It, therefore, becomes difficult to take into account the management expectations of other organizational members that may seem challenging to the personnel management team. The functions of the human resources in the pre- Ulrich period tended to be ineffective in terms of the managerial work. In addition, it was characterized by non reactive, administrative, and strategic actions. Sometimes the personnel professionals were relatively weak, and would face serious challenges that affected their functional positions. The first challenge was the issue of marginality or ‘powerlessness’ in making management decisions. This usually happened at the strategic levels (Caldwell, 2003: 984).The second one was the inability to defend or maintain the boundaries of “their specialist expertise” from being controlled encroached by managerial intervention. The third one was a lack of accountability or clarity in specifying the contribution, goals, or business outcomes of the personnel function. The last one was having tensions in sustaining mutuality’s ethos based on the opposing interests between employees and management. According to Hellen and Anne (2006: 233) interviews and survey findings from HR and personnel managers suggests that UK companies, mostly used personnel management as the main functions of human resource. In addition, the human resource delivery model appeared to be common in the UK’s small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs). A research by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) had 64% of the respondents agreeing on the use of human resource in the SMEs while 47% said that it was mostly used by the small upcoming organizations (Ulrich, 1997: 8). This can be explained by the fact that there were resource constraints in SMEs in the UK during the pre- Ulrich period. This made the SMEs human resource to double both the operational and strategic work of many organizations in the UK. In addition, organizations that were less complex, smaller, and was located in a given location with a population that was homogenous in nature, in most cases, had generalists HR staff (Caldwell, 2001:840). There were a number of characteristics that reveal the use of human resource as a managerial system by the United Kingdom organizations (Crail, 2006: 124). The first one is that a 12 people team would serve a 1,200 work force. The second one is that members of the personnel management team would be a human resource director, three human resource managers, one human resource supervisor, three human resource officers and four human resource assistants. The third one is that a lot of time would be spent by departments on human resource admission, despite having other activities like being a ‘business partner’ and contributor to strategic goals. The model was characterized by attempts to shift some of the human resource responsibilities to the line managers without success. The last one was that the human resource department influenced the running of the organization to some extent. Human resource personnel standing was regarded as generally high in the organization. This was because human resource was seen as the knowledge source and a home for regulatory and legal experts (Ulrich, 2008: 645). Critical discussion of the Post -Ulrich Situation The major changes that have occurred in the western industrialized nations, especially, due to recessions have had a great impact on the functions of Human resource. It has been forced to hold a greater range of activities, perform under greater cost control, and to set new priorities. In addition, there are a number of factors which have influenced the change of human resource. They include high unemployment, changing patterns of employments, new collective legal constraints, and the new technologies (Ulrich and Brockbank, 2005: 78). All these pressures led to functions of human resources being recognized as non strategic, reactive, and administrative. Eventually, there was the emergence of a new form of management called the Human Resource Management. This form of management transformed the functions of human resource to a more strategic practice (Ulrich, 2003: 45) In addition, the practice emphasized the importance of development, employee engagement, and commitment. This importance is what made Ulrich support Human Resource Management instead of the previous functions of human resource. However, due to this support human resource management was recognized as Ulrich model (Marchington and Wilkinson, 2009: 411). Evidence of the take-up of the model As a researcher, consultant, and professor, Dave Ulrich agrees that human resource as a one way form of management; usually referred to as personnel management, should be abolished. Ulrich says that, Human resource should not be defined by its actions but rather by what it delivers (Reilly, 2000: 177). However, many of the organizations have adopted an Ulrich model of management. This is evidence from two major factors. The first one is increased competitiveness. Most of the profit-making organizations have recognized the importance of good customer relationships (Ulrich, 1997: 167). The value of money has become crucial in the public sector and, therefore, there has been a need to increase efficiency through improving the quality of goods and services. The aim is mainly to meet price competitiveness and public spending targets. This has made organizations to adopt an Ulrich model that emphasis on improving the performance of personnel specialists, for instance, through recruitments and training on problem solving. This is much different from the previous functions of human resource which consisted of weak personnel team (Allen and Wright, 2006: 102). The second one is structural changes in the industry. Due to a reduction in manufacturing capacity of industries such as building, engineering, and construction industries, there has been a heavy shift in work and unemployment. This change of occupational structure has altered the pattern of trade union membership hence encouraging the formation of bargaining structures. This, together with other complications brought in the occupational structure have paved way for various imaginative approaches to employment with Ulrich model seen as one of the best approach (Tyson, 1987: 527). Reasons explaining the limited take-up of the model The occurrence of the economic recession, especially, that of 1980 created tension in the business sector. Since then there has been a lot of actions taken to prevent the situation of economic recession from happen again. A lot of companies have become more creative and innovative making them more efficient and competitive. They have been brainwashed by the high profit margin and all that they think of is making money even if it means pressuring the working sector. Most of the companies, therefore, appear reluctant to adopt the Ulrich model which mainly involves promoting employee commitment, voice, and engagement. Instead they consider adopting something that would promote the profit margin. For instance, adopting business partnership roles that will help them compete in the global environment (John and Sue, 2007: 7). In human resource management, most companies find performing human resource practices and leadership role by front line managers, as too much work in an organization. In addition, not many have seen it as of importance thus ignoring the Ulrich model. However, since the model is considered a ‘new thing’ and a risky venture, no one is willing to try it (John and Sue, 2007:11). Weakness of Ulrich’s Model contributing to its limited take-up According to John and Sue (2007: 3) there is a slow appreciation of the Ulrich model and most of the companies criticize it. Though perceived as the best model, it has some weaknesses that make most of the companies reluctant to adopt it. The first one is that the model does not result in strategic thinking since sometimes the specialists in charge grant themselves superiority positions and do not consider the opinions of other stakeholders at lower levels. The second one is that companies find the model to concentrate too much on the well being of the employees instead of the wellbeing of the companies. Conclusion and Recommendation There is no model that can fit all the company’s, institution and organization’s human resource management needs. Each and every company, therefore, needs to choose the model as per the organization’s strategy. There is need to out- source human resource services whenever necessary so as to see to it that the difficulties involved are resolved. This will also ensure that the expertise are found easily and when needed thus efficient and effective. Depending with the situation, the line managers also should help in the human resource management services. There should be a triangulation of both the traditional and the Ulrich models if need be References Allen, M. R. & Wright, P. M. (2006) Strategic management and HRM (CAHRS Working Paper #06-04), Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. Caldwell, R. (2003) ‘Champions, adapters, consultants and synergists: the new change agents in HRM’, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol.40, No.4, pp. 0022– 2380. Cipd. (2013). HR Outlook, London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Crail, M. (2006) ‘HR roles and responsibilities 2006: benchmarking the HR function’, IRS Employment Review, No. 839, January, pp. 9–15. David P. L. & Scott A. S. (2002) ‘Examining the Human Resource Architecture: The Relationships Among Human Capital, Employment, and Human Resource Configurations’, Journal of Management, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 517- 543 Harter, J, Schmitdt, F.L. and Hayes, T.L. (2002), ‘Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement and business outcomes: A meta-analysis,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 87, no. 2, pp. 268- 279 Hellen F. and Anne K. (2006) ‘The changing face of HRM: in search of balance’, Human Resource Management Journal, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 231- 249. John P. & Sue H. (2007) ‘Front-line managers as agents in the HRM performance causal chain: theory, analysis and evidence’, Human Resource Management Journal, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 3-20 Marchington and Wilkinson (2009) ‘Examining the links between HR practices and Processes and Organizational Performance’ Human Resource Management, Vol. 50, pp. 402- 425. Pritchard, K. (2010) ‘Becoming an HR strategic partner: tales of transition’, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol.20, No.2, pp. 175–88. Purcell, J., Kinnie, N., Hutchinson, S., Rayton, B. and Swart, J. (2003) Understanding the People and Performance Link: Unlocking the black box, London: CIPD. Raymond C. (2003) ‘The Changing Roles of Personnel Managers:Old Ambiguities, New Uncertainties’, Journal of management studies, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 983- 1001 Reilly, P. (2000) HR Shared Services and the Realignment of HR, University of Sussex: Institute of Employment Studies. Tamkin, P., Reilly, P., and Strebler, A. (2006) The Changing HR Function: The key questions, London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Taylor, S. and Woodhams, C. (2012) ‘Studying HRM’, in S. Taylor and C. Woodhams (eds) Studying Human Resource Management, London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Tyson, S (1987) ‘The management of personnel function’ Journal of management studies, Vol.24, No. 5, pp. 523- 532 Ulrich, D. (1997) Human Resource Champions: The next agenda for adding value and delivering results, Boston: Harvard Business Review Press. Ulrich, D. (2009) HR transformation: building human resources from the outside in, Chicago: McGraw-Hill. Ulrich, D. (2013) Human Resource Champions: The Next Agenda for Adding Value and Delivering Results, Cambidge: Harvard Business Press. Ulrich, D., and Brockbank, W. (2005) The HR value proposition, Cambridge: Harvard Business Press. Ulrich, D., Younger, J. and Brockbank, W. (2008) ‘The twenty-first century organization’, Human Resource Management, Winter, Vol.47, No.4: 829–50. Read More