Evolution of Human Resource Management
Evolution of Human Resource Management – Historical Perspective of Human Resource Management
The term “human resource management” is of recent origin. In its modern connotation, it came to be used mainly from the 1980s onwards. During ancient times and for a long period in the medieval era, production of goods was done mainly by skilled artisans and craftsmen. They themselves owned the tools and instruments, produced articles and sold these in the market.
As such, the question of employer-employee or master-servant relationship did not arise in their cases. They managed their affairs themselves and with the help of the family members. However, many effluent craftsmen also employed apprentices and certain categories of hired labourers. There existed a very close relationship between the master craftsmen and the apprentices, and they themselves took care of the problems facing the apprentices and their family members.
A sort of human approach was involved in their relationship. After a prolonged period of training, many apprentices established their own enterprises, and many others remained attached with their master craftsmen on lucrative terms. During the medieval period, the skilled craftsmen also formed their guilds primarily with a view to protecting the interests of their respective trades.
These guilds also determined the price of their products, the wages of the journeymen and hired labourers, and regulated the terms and conditions of their employment. The ancient and a major part of the medieval period also witnessed prevalence of certain other distinct types of labourers. These comprised slaves, serfs and indentured labourers.
A brief description of the manner in which they were treated and managed will be relevant for a proper understanding of human resource management in a historical perspective.
1. Managing Slaves:
Slaves comprised an important source of manpower in almost all ancient civilisations. They could be sold and purchased like commodities. Their main purchasers were the wealthy rulers, landlords, tribal chiefs and effluent businessmen. The purchasers of slaves had a rather complete control over their slaves.
The masters of the slaves took a variety of arduous work from them such as carrying heavy loads, rowing ships and boats, construction of buildings and forts, digging canals, cattle-rearing and tillage of soil. The remuneration or compensation for their efforts comprised mainly food, shelter and clothing. The slaves were dealt with iron hands.
They were subjected to strict supervision, and non-compliance of the orders of their masters or supervisors was generally punishable with physical tortures, and occasionally with mutilation of their limbs and even death sentence for grave offences.
2. Managing Serfs:
Serfdom was widely prevalent in the feudal societies of the pre-and early medieval era. Serfs were engaged by landlords mainly in agricultural operations and allied activities. The landlords would usually give them a piece of land for their habitat and often, some land for their own cultivation. In many cases, a paltry sum of money was advanced to them in order that they could remain attached to their masters.
In lieu of these facilities, the serfs and their family members were required to serve their masters. The work assigned to serfs mainly comprised – tillage of soil, cattle-rearing, domestic work and similar other activities. Many landlords would also give them a meagre amount as wages, whether in cash or in kind. Usually, serfs could become free after returning to their masters the habitat, the piece of land and advances with interest. They could also be transferred to some other landlord on payment.
Under serfdom, some measure of personal relationship existed between the landlords and the serfs. Many landlords often tried to solve their genuine grievances and extended some help to those who were in distress. The feudal lords also occasionally gave some economic inducements to their serfs in the form of additional supply of food-grains and some money for their increased productivity and good behaviour.
Although the management of serfs was based on the principle of authoritarianism, the element of human treatment was often found in their relationship. With the abolition of the feudal system, serfdom also came to an end. However, some remnants of the past can still be found even today, especially in rural areas. The bonded labour system in India is comparable to the system of serfdom prevalent in European countries during the medieval period.
3. Managing Indentured Labour:
The system of indentured labour emerged primarily with the flourishing of mercantilism and advent of industrial revolution. The discovery of new lands through sea and land routes led to a substantial increase in the demand of European goods abroad, and at the same time, gave a fillip to the establishment of industries in the continent.
As a consequence, trade flourished leaps and bounds, and the mercantilists, taking advantage of the expanding markets, tried to accumulate as much wealth as possible. In their quest for maximising wealth, the mercantilists would offer attractive inducements to the artisans and skilled craftsmen for accelerating production of goods in demand. The artisans and craftsmen responded and they started engaging an increasing number of apprentices and hired labourers to cope with the demand of the products.
Advent of Industrial Revolution and its Aftermath:
The advent of industrial revolution proved a boon to the mercantilists. The industrial revolution resulted in a rapid growth of factories, large-scale production, improvement in technology and reduction in time involved in producing goods. The mercantilists increasingly became owners of factories and other establishments.
These developments resulted in an unprecedented demand for various categories of labour both within the country and abroad. Although a major portion of the demand for labour was met by the large-scale migration of people from rural areas to industrial centres and towns, the supply proved inadequate to meet the increasing demand for various categories of labour.
In view of insufficiency of normal supply of labour, the employers resorted to the practice of advancing a lucrative amount of money to the workers and of entering into agreements with them to the effect that they would work with their employers for a stipulated period of time and on terms agreed upon, and after completion of the period and complying with agreed terms, they would be set free.
The European employers engaged indentured labourers on a large scale. During the British rule in India, the British employers contracted agreements with a large number on indentured labourers and sent many of them in their colonies abroad such as South Africa, Mauritius and South-east Asian countries.
Management of Indentured Labour:
Management of indentured labour was substantially different from that of slaves and serfs. So long as these indentured labourers remained with their employers, they had to abide by the terms and conditions mutually agreed upon, and also those unilaterally laid down by their employers.
Breaking of the contract was a punishable offence under law. The indentured labourers and also their free counterparts had to face numerous problems such as those related to low wages, excessive hours of work, insanitary and hazardous physical working conditions and job insecurity.
As no relief was forthcoming either from their employers or from the state, they started organising for exerting concerted pressure on both for improving their conditions. However, their combinations were declared unlawful by the courts of law and under common law and special statutes.
Some of the notable features of management of indentured labour comprised – strict supervision, ensuring compliance with the orders of employer and supervisors, harsh disciplinary action for misconduct, provision of some amenities at the workplace, some inducements to increase productivity and adopting steps to redress genuine grievances of workers.
The major responsibility for managing indentured labourers vested in the local managers and supervisors. The employer generally took broad policy decisions and directed the local managers to ensure their proper compliance. Thus, the main element in the management of indentured labourers rested primarily on the principle of dominance and subordination.
The employers were, however, aware that after the completion of the period of contract, the indentured labourers would be set free. Foreseeing the difficulties which might have to be faced in procuring new hands with requisite skills, they started giving additional inducements to competent indentured labourers in the forms of higher emoluments, promise of promotion and enhanced facilities, so that they could stay on their jobs.
Emergence of Modern Industrial Labour and Improvement of Status:
Even during the periods when slavery and serfdom were rampant, there were various categories of workers who enjoyed a certain amount of freedom in the relationships with their employers. They were mainly skilled craftsmen and artisans and experienced apprentices. However, the composition of free workers materially changed with the spread of industrialisation and establishment of factories and other kinds of industrial and business establishments.
Industrialisation led to the congregation of a large number of workers at the same establishment owned by an individual employer or a company. The employers were generally interested in maximising their profits, and callously disregarded human aspects in managing the affairs of their enterprises.
The state also remained a mute spectator to the miseries and sufferings of the toiling masses of workers, primarily because of the widespread prevalence of the doctrine of individualism and laissez faire. These situations led to further deterioration in the conditions of industrial workers who had to face numerous problems in their employment.
Notable among these problems were low wages, excessive hours of work, hazardous and strenuous physical working conditions, instability of employment, and arbitrary treatment by supervisors and managers.
The industrial workers, sooner or later, came to realise that individually they might be dispensable to the employer, but collectively, they were indispensable as the running of the enterprise was in the interests of both. This realisation induced them to organise and pressurise the employers and the state to take positive steps to improve their conditions.
However, these early combinations received severe blows from the courts of law either under common law or under special statutes such as Combination Acts, 1799 and 1800 of England.
The conditions, however, changed during the course of time. Certain notable developments relevant to the management of human resources included spread of democratic ideals and principles, growth of socialist ideas, emergence of the concept of welfare state, strengthening of workers’ organisations, efforts of social reformers, and changes in the size and composition of the labour force.
These developments led to substantial changes in the attitude of the employers towards workers and the role of the state in regard to labour matters.
The state started enacting labour laws with a view to ameliorating physical working conditions at the place of work, laying down minimum standards in specified areas of terms and conditions of employment, making available to workers certain welfare amenities, adopting social security measures against certain contingencies such as disablement and death resulting from work-injuries, sickness and maternity and establishing workers’ right to form trade union and bargain collectively with the employer.
The employers increasingly came to realise that their prerogatives of “hiring and firing” workers at their will and unilaterally laying down the terms and conditions of employment had been enormously encroached upon by union pressures and state intervention, and it would be difficult for them to manage their enterprises if they did not give due attention to human aspects in dealing with their workers.
These conditions have come to exist even today, but in a greatly modified form. Some of the more notable developments relating to human resources in modern perspective comprise – (i) substantial change in the composition of labour force with the entry of a large number of educated and highly skilled workers with specialisation, (ii) greatly improved status of all categories of employees, (iii) extensive state intervention in the domain of human resources, (iv) development of liberal attitude of employers towards employees with major attention on human aspects, (v) enhancement of strength and status of unions, and (vi) growing international deliberations and exchanges in human resources matters.
Comments
Post a Comment