HR comes of age - history of human resource management

HR Magazine, March 15, 1998 by Michael Losey

Workfoce management has become increasingly complex. The heritage and growth of the human resource management profession is closely linked to people's attitudes about work, the evolution of employment-related laws and sociological trends. The HR field today recognizes the dynamic relationship between strategy, people, technology and the processes that drive organizations. Although this dynamic relationship appears obvious now, the evolution of the profession has often been slow.

One could argue that the HR field dates back to the first working arrangements between master craftspeople and their apprentices. Before the industrial Revolution, working arrangements involved close relationships between mentors and apprentices dedicated to learning a particular trade. Apprentices were often required to live in the shop or home of the master craftsperson. If an apprentice was injured or sick, the master's family was responsible for restoring the young worker's health and welfare. Master and apprentice shared in good times and bad, in profit and in loss.

The usefulness of this age-old relationship came to an abrupt end with the advent of the Industrial Age. In one powerful stroke, the notion of work moved from guilds and home shops to steam-driven factories. The introduction of the assembly line brought a need for low-skilled employees capable of performing repetitive tasks. Management philosophy at the turn of the century was epitomized by Henry Ford, who often wondered why workers brought their heads to work when all he really needed was their hands and feet.

Assembly line production required that large numbers of people come together for work, but these workers were interchangeable and, to some extent, expendable, because few skills were required for most factory jobs. Employers' attentions focused on consumer demands, the speed at which new machines produced goods and the processes that drove production -- concerns that were sometimes placed well ahead of the needs of employees.

The personnel administration movement

By the late 1800s, people problems were a very real concern in the workplace. For the average blue-collar worker, most jobs were low-paying, monotonous and unsafe. Some industries experienced difficulty recruiting and retaining employees because of the poor working conditions workers were exposed to. As the means of production continued to shift from farmlands and guilds to city factories, concerns grew about wages, safety, child labor and 12-hour workdays. Workers began to band together in unions to protect their interests and improve living standards. Government stepped in to provide basic rights and protections for workers.

Forward-thinking employers recognized that productivity was connected to worker satisfaction and involvement and realized they could not meet production schedules with bands of disgruntled employees. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, the personnel profession that grew out of concerns about employee absenteeism and high turnover attempted to solve worker problems with such basic personnel management functions as employee selection, training and compensation.

It's believed that the first personnel management department began at the National Cash Register Co. (NCR). NCR faced a major strike at the turn of the century but eventually defeated the union after a lockout in 1901. After this difficult union battle, company President John H. Patterson decided to improve worker relations by organizing a personnel department to handle grievances, discharges, safety and other employee issues. The department also kept track of pending legislation and court decisions and these first personnel managers provided training for supervisors on new laws and practices.

NCR was not alone in its efforts to address employee grievances. Other employers were looking for management solutions that would alleviate employee disenchantment. Many attempted to ease labor unrest by increasing wages. For example, Ford experienced employee turnover ratios of 380 percent in 1913; in 1914, the company doubled the daily salaries for line workers from $2.50 to $5, even though $2.50 was a fair wage at that time.

Although industrial giants were beginning to understand that they had to do more than just hire and fire if they were going to meet consumer demands for products, most of the objectives of early personnel professionals were one-sided. Business leaders still viewed the work itself as infinitely more important than the people doing it, and production rates remained the top concern. Because employers believed employees would accept more rigid standards if they received extra pay and benefits, most employer-sponsored business solutions were aimed at making employees more efficient. From this mind-set grew scientific management approaches based on the work of Frederick W. Taylor and other experts whose goal was to get people to perform as efficiently as machines.

Of course, such approaches did little to improve worker morale or improve working environments. To counter the growing strength of the labor movement, some employers hired strikebreakers or kept blacklists of union members. Others made workers sign "yellow-dog" contracts -- agreements that they would not join unions. Still others attempted to protect their interests by creating company unions to preempt the influence of outside union activities.