HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF STRATEGIC HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Department of Management, University of Dhaka, Bangladesh FARUQ AHMED and Department of Business Administration, Aligarh Muslim University, India DR AZHAR KAZMI

ABSTRACT In the competitive environment of open economy,strategy and human resource management (HRM) systemsare becoming significant factors for thecorporations. The consideration of strategy and HRMsystems jointly led to the emergence of strategichuman resource management (SHRM), which is crucialfor achieving a corporation's long-term goals.Before the emergence of SHRM as a philosophy, itunderwent a long historical evolution. This articleattempts to bring this historical evolution of SHRMbeginning from different civilization-philosophiesthrough the evolution of personnel management (PM)then evolution of HRM, and finally to the emergenceof SHRM. It also presents a critical assessment ofthis historical evolution. The article finally drawsattention to the fact that only in SHRM - and not inPM or HRM - are people considered strategicresource, that is to be used for creating andsustaining competitive advantage for the firm. INTRODUCTION American writers Terrey and Franklin (1996)mentioned about the 6 Ms of management, viz. menand women, material, money, market and method. Butamong these, men and women - the only living beings- do the effective coordination and utilization ofthese human and non-human resources. Rensis Likert(1967, p 1) rightly observed: "all the activities ofany enterprise are initiated and determined by thepersons who make up the institution; plants,offices, computers, automated equipment, and allelse that make up a modern firm are unproductiveexcept for human effort and direction of all thetasks of management, managing the human component isthe central and most important task, because allelse depends on how well it is done". Jucius (1973,pp 37 - 38) calls these resources "human factors".In recent years, in both the UK and USA, ascompanies have been confronted by Japanesecompetition and employment stereotypes, theystruggled with recession and searched forexcellence, so the vocabulary for managing these"human factors" has tended to change - managingPersonnel Management (PM) is giving way to HumanResource Management (HRM) or better still toStrategic Human Resource Management (SHRM) (Legge,1989).

The objectives of this article are to trace thehistorical evaluation of SHRM and to draw lessons tobetter understand SHRM and to possibly find outsignificant pointers to its future course ofdevelopment. This study is desk-research based onpublished books, articles and papers. THE DEVELOPMENT STAGES Though the field of SHRM as a discipline isrelatively recent, the precepts upon which itscurrent concepts are based had their origins deep inhistory. The ancients (Paleolithic men), with theirstone axes, adzes and other flint tools, might nothave appreciated the principle of "transfer of skillfrom the human to the machine", but they werenevertheless applying the principle, and thisseparated them from large numbers of other humanbeings (Megginson, 1977). After that, differentphilosophies came into being and these contributed alot toward the development of "managing people",later called Personnel Management (PM). PM did notemerge all of a sudden, but through an evolutionaryprocess-which started after the industrialrevolution in the later half of the 18th century inEurope and ended by the emergence of HRM. HRM holds a different philosophy about managingpeople from that of PM. As philosophy controlspractice, some activities of HRM are different fromthose of PM. The concept of HRM developed initiallyfrom the works in the USA in the 1960s and 1970s(Brewster, 1994). In the USA, where the concept ofHRM originated, there is a widespread belief thatHRM is the dependent variable and business strategyis the independent variable in their relationship(see, for example, Galbraith and Nathanson (1978)and Tichy, Fomburn and Devanna (1982)). From thatbelief SHRM emerged. Since then it has been adoptedincreasingly around the world. In the followingsections, the contribution of differentphilosophies, the evolution of PM, the evolutiotn ofHRM and the emergence of SHRM will be discussed. CONTRIBUTION OF DIFFERENT PHILOSOPHIES PM/HRM decisions can be traced to somecivilization-philosophies. Certain mechanisms had tobe developed to get things done by and throughpeople. The contribution of different philosophiesis divided into the following sections: 1. The Egyptian Civilization Philosophy (5000 - 525BC): One of the best-known accomplishments of theEgyptians is the construction of the pyramids. Theydeveloped a well-defined hierarchy with the job

descriptions and duties of the managers spelled out.They employed time-saving techniques, such as weightarms, for moving the blocks from one level of thepyramid to the next, showing a basic understandingof the time and motion study (Malhotra, et al.,1996a). 2. The Babylonian Civilization Philosophy: A leaderof the Babylonian kingdom, Hammurabi (2123 - 2081BC), prepared the first great code of law and gaveencouragement to learning. As early as 1750 BC, thecode of Hammurabi attempted to encourage safety byproviding for punishment of individuals who violatedsafety provisions in constructing buildings. Thereare "early illustrations showing workers engaged inthe grinding of vermilion (which produces adangerous dust) wearing a primitive type ofbreathing apparatus" (Malhotra, et al.,1996b, p 4). 3. The Chinese Civilization Philosophy (c 2000 BC):In ancient China, useful principles of PM werewell-known: (i) LS Hsu has highlighted the ancient/ Chineseparables containing practical suggestions to selecthonest, capable and unselfish public officers. (ii) Confucius was well known in China for hisuseful principles. (iii) Tao Te Ching, the well-known book of wisdom inChina written by Lao Tzo in the fifth century BCexplains how ( Tao) things work ( Te) . This book(Ching) deals with the role of a good leader inmanaging people. Tao is the principle or law of howall things or events happen. A leader who does notknow Tao (i.e. how things happen) is bound to be aconfusing personality. Hence, the leader'sintegrity is based on the knowledge of how thingswork (Michael,1995). 4. Ancient Indian Philosophy: (i) Valmiki, in his Ramayana (Sunderkand Sarge 64,Slokas 16 & 17), observed that people who carriedout difficult and important tasks must be given duerespect, and no compulsion was required for suchpeople to perform well. It was implied that goodperformers were required to have freedom of actionand recognition. (ii) Thiruvalluvar, a Tamil scholar who lived about2000 years ago, emphasized the need for carefulselection of employees. (iii) Brihaspati had disapproved, in the selectionand recruitment of employees, the appointment of

those who were hostile (vive-sino), indolent(alasa),timid (bhiravh), avaricious (lubha), too old(ati-bridha) or too young. (iv) In the Varnashrams which existed in ancientIndia during the Vedic and Puranic periods, somesort of division of labour existed (Michael,1995). (v) Kautilya had observed that there existed a soundbase for systematic PM as early as the fourthcentury BC. He told about job-description,job-qualifications, selection procedure, executivedevelopment, incentive system (carrot and stickapproach), performance evaluation and so on(Sharma,1977). 5. The Hebrew Philosophy (1491 BC): The task ofleading the Hebrews out of Egyptian bondage was asignificant organizational achievement. Mosesdelegated authority by selecting and trainingleaders who were responsible for a number ofsubordinates. In the Old Testament, Jethro advisedhis son-in-law Moses, "And let them judge the peopleat all seasons; and it shall be that every greatmatter they shall bring to thee, but every smallmatter they shall judge, so shall it be easier forthyself, and they shall bear the burden with thee".Moses did all that he said, and the hard cases theybrought to Moses. This follows the widely accepted"exception principle". Moses was also sensitive tothe needs of his followers. He listened to thecomplaints and problems of his people before acting:a participative approach (Malhotra, et al.,1996a, pp19-20). 6. The Roman Philosophy (250 BC - 300 AD): TheRomans, in their organization structure not onlymade use of job descriptions and the scalar chain ofcommand, but also faced and solved reorganizationalproblems caused by excessive bureaucracy, problemsthat currently confront many modern organizations(Malhotra, et al.,1996a). 7. Biblical Philosophy: (i) Boaz (1312 BC), in the Bible, was gracious,benevolent, honest and sympathetic to his workers,and the workers reciprocated with sincere hard work,loyalty, affection and godly blessing. (ii) Solomon, the wisest employer this world hasever seen, considered his people as God-given giftsas early as 1014 BC. (iii)The Bible asks the employers to be benevolentand to give justice and equality to the workers."Masters, give unto your workers that which is just

and equal, knowing that ye also have a master inheaven" (Col. 4:1). (iv)As far as a steward-manager is concerned, ,hemust be able to manage his people without coercivemeasures or threats, to the maximum extent possible.Paul's observation (2000 years ago) is veryrelevant, "And ye masters, do the same things untothem, forbearing threatening, knowing that yourMaster also is in heaven; neither is therepartiality of persons with him" (Eph. 6:9). (v) If your worker is deprived of a portion of hislegitimate wage, it is an offence equivalent torobbery. "Thou shall not defraud, neither rob him;the wages of him that is hired shall not abide withthee all night until the next morning" (Lev. 19:13). 8. Roman Catholic Church Philosophy (42 AD onwards):The Catholic Church is one of the most effectiveorganizations in the history of Westerncivilization. Its longevity is due in no smallmeasure to its effective administrative practices.For example, over a thousand years ago the Churchdeveloped job descriptions for its clergy. By theMiddle Ages it was already making use of the "staffprinciple", in which superiors had to seek theadvice of their subordinates before making any majordecisions, and the principle of "staffindependence", in which a prelate's key advisorswere not chosen by or removable by that individual,thereby avoiding the "yes man" pitfall (Malhotra, etal., 1996a). 9. Islamic Philosophy: Allah says, "That day mankindwill issue forth in scattered groups to be showntheir deeds. And whoso doth good an atom's weightwill see it then, and whoso doth ill an atom'sweight will see it then" (99: 6-8). That is, onewill get the remuneration according to one's amountof labour invested. By this way Islam considers"labour" from a broader meaning of bothmaterialistic and ethical dimensions. In Fiqah theword Ajir is used in denoting the labour oremployee. According to Fiqah, the concept of labouror employee is discussed by analysing it in twogroups: (i) Azir-al-mustarak (Class of daily labourwho are paid wages on the basis of units produced)and (ii) Azir-al-has (class of labour who areemployed and paid wages on time-basis). Characteristics of Islamic Labour (or Personnel)Policy: * The policy is formulated in the light of the Quranand the Hadith.

* Every task is performed on the basis of being justand legal. It is never submissive to any undueinfluence, pressure and fear. * Owner-labour are brothers and no-classdiscrimination exists. * Labour exploitation is illegal. * No worker can be employed in "sin" work. * Labour is not considered an exchangeable product,but "the best creation" (Rahman 1993: 40). Islam is a complete code of life (3: 19). Manythings are told (in the Quran, the Hadith, and theFiqah) about (what we call today) the personnelpolicy. Only a few modern PM concepts are mentionedhere for illustrative purposes and only one exampleis cited for each concept: (i) Job-qualification: For employment, hints of twothings are strength-ability and reliability (SurahQuaasas). (ii) Nature of work: No one should be charged beyondhis capacity (2: 233). (iii) Education, training and development: Read: Inthe name of the Lord who createth (96:1). Earnknowledge from swinging to death (Hadith). (iv) Promotion (on the basis of merit): Give notunto the foolish (what is in) your (keeping oftheir) wealth, which Allah hath given you tomaintain; but feed and clothe them from it and speakkindly unto them (4:5). (v) Overtime work: If you assign on them theresponsibility of doing more work, then help them bygiving additional wages in that ratio (Hadith). (vi) Pay contract: Do not employ a worker withoutdetermining his wage (Hadith). (vii) Payment of Pay: Pay the worker before hissweat dries up (Hadith). (viii) Participative decision-making: Consult withothers before deciding (Hadith). (ix) Labour-management relations: Exhibit goodbehaviour with the subordinates and do not give themany pain. Do you know that like you they have also aheart: they will be sorry if you give them pain andthey will be happy if you give them pleasure? What

happened to you that you do not show sincerity tothem? (Hadith). (x) Responsibility of labour: Allah likes that, theworker when he performs his duty performs in abetter way (Hadith). The description of the philosophies related tomanagement of human resource demonstrates the factthat several basic elements prevalent at presenthave their genesis in history. Industrial activitieshave always formed an important part of thepreoccupation of humankind since the dawn ofcivilization. Beginning with the Renaissance period(14th - 16th centuries) a phenomenal growth wasachieved in the arts and sciences. By the time theorganized factory system came into being, widelybelieved to have been started in medieval Italy, thefoundations for the Industrial Revolution were laidfirmly. Capital and technology, along with labour,became the vital inputs to industrial activity.Management of personnel assumed an important rolewith the advent of the human relations school ofthought in management by the beginning of thetwentieth century. EVOLUTION OF PM The word personnel began to appear in its modernconnotation around 1909 (Riper, 1958). Henry Metcalfestablished a "Bureau of Personnel Administration"in 1920, and the first comprehensive textbook in thefield, Personnel Administration, by Tead and Metcalfappeared (Spates, 1960). Mass production was notunknown in some fields before the IndustrialRevolution in England, but life was essentiallyprimitive (Malhotra, et al.; 199Ca). From the timeof the Industrial Revolution, PM was getting itsshape. The Industrial Revolution Era The Industrial Revolution appeared almostsimultaneously with the intellectual, scientific andpolitical revolutions of the 17th and 18thcenturies. After the Industrial Revolution, thefactory-system came into being. As a result, (i) itwas necessary to start and stop work at the sametime; (ii) establish rigorous working rulesapplicable to large numbers of people; (iii) anextensive hierarchy of officials appeared; (iv) thesocial distance between factory hand and owner wasincreasing widely; (v) most employees in thefactories worked long hours at low pay underconditions of extremes in temperature, dust, noise,and other discomforts. Labour was usually considereda commodity to be bought and sold and the prevailing

political philosophy of Laissez faire resulted inlittle action by governments to protect the lot ofthe workers (French,1974). This new industrial erabrought about materialism, discipline, monotony,boredom, job displacement, impersonality,workinterdependence, and related behaviouralphenomena for the labours (Perline, et al., 1969). Trade Unionism Era It was inevitable that associations of wage earnerswould arise to protect themselves against some ofthe abuses of the Industrial Revolution and toimprove their lot in life. Trade or labour unionsspread from factory to factory, and shop to shop(French, 1974). Strikes were one consequence. TheEnglish Parliament passed a series of laws in 1799and 1800 -known as the "Combination Laws", thatdeclared trade unions to be illegal (Cohen, 1960).After the Commonwealth vs. Hunt decision, the rightto organize and bargain collectively was graduallyestablished (French, 1974). A number of Acts of theUK and USA during this time brought theunion-management relations, individual employee'sright and unions' rights and power. to theirpresent position. Social Reformer Era About 1799, Robert Owen, a successful entrepreneurand manager of Scotland, fervently preached thegospel that people were creatures of theirenvironment and that their behaviour was a functionof their treatment (French,1974). His concern foremployees and attempts to relieve human miseryresulted in his promotion of shorter working hours,safer working conditions and better housing for theparish apprentices in his employ. Along withhumanitarian reforms in the factory, Owen instituteda procedure of visible ratings of the production ofeach employee as a check on "inferior conduct"(Podmore,1907, pp 90 - 91). Scientific Management Era The famous name associated with this movement isthat of F W Taylor. Around 1878, Taylor haddeveloped what he called "the four great principlesof management". In general, the scientificmanagement movement emphasized the importance ofmanagement planning down to the smallest details inthe operations of the factory (French,1974). But hisopinions about group effort were quite negative andfor this his efforts were strongly resisted byorganized labour, and even the Congress of the USA.Among the contemporaries of Taylor who extended hisconcepts were the Gilbreths and Gantt. F Gilbreth

formulated laws of efficient motion (Gilbreth,1911).L Gilbreth is credited with one of the early booksrelating the principles of scientific management tothe field of psychology (Gilbreth,1914). H Gantt'stwo innovations were "task and bonus" wage systemand "Gantt chart" (Business Week, 1964). Era of Industrial Psychology Early industrial psychology seemed to focus onimprovements in selling techniques, but researchersin industrial psychology were also interested inmore effective matching of workers' abilities withjob (Gilmer, 1961). In 1913 Hugo Munsterberg's book,Psychology anal Industrial Efficiency, described theanalysis of jobs in terms of their mental andemotional requirements and in terms of thedevelopment of testing devices. In commenting on theproblem of monotony, he stressed the importance ofthe individual worker's needs and motivations(Gilmer, 1961). In this era the wellknowndevelopments are: (i) "Test l-A" fdrmental-alertness; (ii) statistical validity in theuse of tests; (iii) developments in checkingreferences; (iv) Army Alpha and Army Betaintelligence tests; (v) tests of aptitude, trade,interest and personality; etc. Era of Human Relations Movement In 1923 the Western Electric Company startedexperiments at its Hawthorne Works in Chicago in anattempt to find out what the effects of illuminationwere on workers and their output. Prof. Mayo and hispeers con- ducted the research continuing into theearly 1930s. They concluded that productivity was afunction of the extent to which the group became ateam and cooperated wholeheartedly andspontaneously. (For detailed reports of theseexperiments, see Roethlisberger and Dickson, 1939;Whitehead, 1938; Pennock, 1930; Johnson, 1975). Thehuman relations movement was mainly concerned withthe informal, spontaneous behaviour of work groupsand the sentiments, interactions, and attitudes ofemployees. The scientific management movement wasmainly concerned with the organization as atechno-economic system while the human relationsmovement viewed the organization as a social system(French, 1974: 30-31). Era of the Behavioural Sciences The behavioural sciences are essentially the socialand biological sciences pertaining to the study ofhuman behaviour. The term was coined about 1949 andgrew out of a meeting of scientists who wereconsidering whether a sufficient body of facts

exists to justify developing an empirically tenablegeneral theory of behaviour (Miller, 1955). Recentcontributions from the behavioural sciences to thestudy of PM have come mainly from industrialpsychology, social psychology, organizationalpsychology, and sociology and a great deal ofrelevant research cuts across these disciplines. Personnel Specialist and Welfare Era With the increase in the size of an organization,only hire and fire of personnel functions had to beallotted to a full-time "manager". With furtherincreases in the number of employees, a separatepersonnel executive had to be appointed to determinewage rates, develop job descriptions and jobspecifications and to look after the benefits andservices provided for the employees. Later safetyexperts, physicians, behaviour researchers, labourrelations specialists and others were appointed.For administrative and organizational effectiveness,these different functions were merged into a singleposition, viz., the "Personnel Manager and WelfareOfficer". After that, organizational planning, manpowerplanning, manpower selection and other alliedproblems regarding the management of managers andhigh talent manpower assumed significance in theorganization. High talent personnel emerged as thekey human resources (Ordiarne, 1971). The emphasisthen shifted to the "management of human resources"(HRM). EVOLUTION OF HRM The concept of HRM developed initially from works inthe USA in the 1960s and 1970s. Since then it hasbeen adopted increasingly around the world(Brewster, 1994). PM vs. HRM Armstrong (1987), a British writer, argued thatsubstantively there is little new in HRM: "It couldindeed be no more and no less than t another namefor PM, but, as usually perceived, at least it hasthe virtue of emphasizing the need to treat peopleas a key resource....". A few other authors (e.g.Fowler, 1987) echoed the same thing. But most of theauthors had tried to show the differences betweenthese two. Legge (1989) took two approaches in orderto identify possible differences between PM and HRM- on the basis of normative models and on the basisof their respective practices. Torrington and Hall(1995) explained the differences by indicating PM as"workforce-centered" and HRM as "resource-centered".

Mahoney and Deckop (1986) argued that, in explainingthe differences between PM and HRM, overall. HRMinvolves a wider and broader view in six specificareas. The six areas and the focus in each from theviewpoint of PM and HRM respectively are givenbelow: (i) Employment planning: From a narrow technicalfocus to closer links with business strategy. (ii) Communication with employees: From acollective, negotiating focus to a general approachto direct communication with employees. (iii) Employee feelings: From job satisfaction toconcern with the total organizational culture. (iv) Employment terms: From selection, training,compensation policies focused on individuals to aconcern with group-working and group effectiveness. (v) Employment cost-benefits: From a concern withcost-reduction through such strategies as reducingturnover, controlling absenteeism to focus onorganizational effectiveness and the "bottom line". (vi) Employee development: From development ofindividual skills to longer-term employmentcapabilities. In a similar, but slightly different way, Beaumont(1991, p 27) identifies five "major items typicallymentioned" in the US literature as part of HRM: (i) Relatively well-developed internal labour marketarrangements; in such areas as promotion, training,and individual career planning. (ii) Flexible work organization system. (iii) Contingent compensation practices and/ orskills-or knowledge-based pay structures. (iv) High levels of individual participation intask-related decisions. (v) Extensive internal communications arrangements. Storey (1992) identifies twenty-seven differencesbetween PM and HRM under four headings, namely,beliefs and assumptions, strategic aspects, linemanagement and key levers. Guest (1987) conceives of HRM not as an alternativeto PM but as a particular form of PM, whichstresses: the goal of integration, the goal ofemployee commitment, the goal of

flexibility/adaptability. A later paper by the sameauthor discussed a range of innovative techniques ofthe sort typically associated with HRM, includingsuch issues as flexible working practices, qualitycircles, training in participative skills and jobenrichment (Guest, 1990). Guest (1987) has drawn aline of difference between PM and HRM, shown inFigure 1. Meaning and Domain HRM is an elastic term (Storey, 1989). There is nouniversal agreement on the meaning of HRM. In fact,there are varying and contradictory models. Forexample, some say that HRM covers a four-foldtypology: employee influence, human resource flow(into, through, and out of the organization), rewardsystems, and work systems (Beer, et al., 1985); someidentify four rather different areas: acquisition,maintenance, motivation and development of HR (DeCenzo and Robbins, 1988); still others tell about afive-step HRM cycle: selection, performance,appraisal, rewards and development (Fomburn, et al.,1984). Many concepts have been integrated intobroader approaches which have contributed tomanagement thinking in various periods andultimately the development of HRM (Price, 1997), asshown in Figure 2, which is one of the main causesof this "elasticity" of meaning. The meaning of HRM is further complicated by writers(e.g. Storey, 1989) who distinguished between "hard"and "soft" forms of HRM, typified by the Michiganand Harvard models respectively. "Hard" HRM focuseson the resource side of human resources. Itemphasizes costs in the form of "headcounts" andplaces control firmly in the hands of management.Their role is to manage numbers effectively, keepingthe workforce closely matched with requirements interms of both body and behaviour. "Soft" HRM, on theother hand, stresses the "human" aspects of HRM. Itsconcerns are with communication and motivation.People are led rather than managed. They areinvolved in determining and realizing strategicobjectives (Price, 1997). In fact, the value andpopularity of HRM may be attributed to its opennessto varied interpretations. It is possible to arguethat the term is a useful "catchall phrase,reflecting general intentions but devoid of specificmeaning" (Guest,1989, p 48). Indeed, Keenoy andAnthony (1992) consider that one should not look tooclosely. Once we seek to explain HRM, to subject it to anyanalysis or criticism, it ceases to function asintended. Its purpose is to transform, to inspire,to motivate and, above all, to create a new

"reality" which is freely available to those whochoose or are persuaded to believe. To explain it isto destroy it (Keenoy and Anthony 1992). In this situation simple reflection on the threewords human, resource and management can provide adeeper insight. "Human" implies labour, worker,employee or personnel, which-ever is called atdifferent stages of HRM-development or differentstages or situations of organizational settings, ofthe organization. "Management" (as part of HRM)denotes the strategic planning and management ofpersonnel of an organization. "Resource" indicatesthat personnel are "valued assets" and, with theemphasis on commitment, adaptability and employeesas a source of competitive advantage, the imagemight equally be presented as "resourceful" humans(Legge, 1989, p 25). Others explained in adifferent way - why the personnel are treated asresource. First, skills and knowledge representcapital, because they enhance productivity. In otherwords, people add value to a firm to the extent thatthey will perform future services (Parnes, 1984). Second, human resource is the result of a firm'smaking a deliberate investment either through hiringcertain individuals "on the market" or developingthem in-house. These investments, via HRM, carryboth out-of-pocket and opportunity costs, and arejustified only if they produce future returns viaincreased productivity (Duncan and Hoffman, 1981;Rumberger, 1987; Tsang, 1987). Third, human resource commands a price on the marketbecause it is valuable to other firms and, perhapsmore important, it is transferable (Parnes, 19843.This transferability is a critical differencebetween human capital and physical capital. Even ifemployees stay with a firm, their contributiondepends on their willingness to perform. Therefore,control costs, or costs of retaining and motivatingemployees (such as wages), must be considered humanresource investments as well (Flamholtz and Lacey,1981). Obviously, the employees are not valuable inthe abstract, but rather as a function of the jobsthey perform (Flamholtz, 1979). But as Tyson andFell (1986) point out, "human resource" may beunderstood in a completely different sense, as afactor of production, along with land and capital,and an "expense of doing business" rather than "theonly resource capable of turning inanimate factorsof production into wealth". EMERGENCE OF SHRM In the USA, where the concept of HRM originated,there is wide-spread belief that HRM is the

dependent variable and business strategy is theindependent variable in their relationship (see, forexample, Galbraith and Nathanson, 1978; Tichy, etal. 1982). Guest, (1993, p 213) distinguishes PMfrom HRM "by virtue of the way in which the formerignored, but the latter embraces strategy". But theconcept of SHRM is facing an identity crisis and itis defined and viewed from many perspectives. Someof the important ones are discussed below. 1. HRM or strategic HRM: Some writers consider HRMand SHRM identical. For example, in the words ofBeer, et al. (1984, p 13), "we view HRM from astrategic perspective". 2. Management level: Anthony (1965) classifiedmanagement-level into three classes - strategic,managerial, and operational. Tichy, et al. (1981)have shown the HR activities are associated withthese three levels. From their discussion it isclear that Tichy, et al. (1981) see SHRM as part ofHRM; and its area covers only the "strategic levelof management". 3. Functions strategy: In the HRM process there aresome functions, for instance, organization,resourcing, pay, etc. Every function of the HRMprocess has its own strategic elements. Forinstance, in the resourcing function, there arestrategic dimensions like achievement vs. aptitude,selection criteria, method mix of recruitment,technique content of selection techniques, etc.These strategic aspects of the functions, accordingto some authors like Torrington and Hall (1995), arecalled SHRM. 4. Blending strategies: Strategies are set toachieve the objectives of the firm; differentenvironments and objectives require differentstrategies. In order to formulate and implementthese strategies, the appropriate type of HRMstrategies are required. Some authors, like Milesand Snow (1984), call this blending of businessstrategies with HRM strategies as SHRM. From the detailed review of SHRM literature, thefollowing points can be identified: * There is a semantics problem between HRM and SHRM. * SHRM is one of the two broad areas of HRM - theother area is the functional HRM. * There are some strategic aspects in every elementof the HRM process and these are known as SHRM. * If the SHRM process or functional HRM process or

any of their element fits/blends with businessstrategy, SHRM will emerge. * SHRM is not completely dependent on businessstrategy. Without this "HRM business strategy" link,there can be SHRM. * Though in HRM (both functional and strategic)people are considered "resource", in SHRM they areconsidered "strategic (human) resource". * The main objective of SHRM, which naturally comesin the SHRM definition, is creating and sustaining"competitive advantage" for the business. A CRITIQUE OF THE HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF SHRM In the first stage of the development differentphilosophies contributed a lot. But theircontributions were not linked with one another, i.e.Only scattered developments had taken place. Atthis stage, sometimes "output/ outcome" wasemphasized and sometimes "people" was emphasizedfrom the humanistic viewpoint. The civilizationphilosophies, in major cases, stressed output, andthe other philosophies, in major cases, stressedpeople's well being. From the era of the Industrial Revolution thedevelopments were sequential, i.e. each developmentwas followed by another. In the evolutionary processof PM, people were considered a commodity to bebought and sold in the earlier stages and in thelater stages people were considered "human beings"and their welfare was taken into account. But inboth cases, output was the main concern. At the endof this evolutionary process PM had emerged as aseparate discipline, and "personnel specialist" wasthe result of this process. HRM holds a different philosophy from that of PM. InHRM people are considered not only "human" but also"resource" - though there is a controversy aboutwhich area, human or resource, the emphasis shouldbe given to. Based on the "hard" version of HRM,people are considered a resource of theorganization; and based on the "soft" version ofHRM, the humanistic side of managing people is seen. In SHRM, people are not merely treated as "humanresource", but are considered "strategic" humanresource. They are considered such because they arethe important tool for planning and implementing thebusiness strategy and they help in gaining the"competitive advantage" of the firm. In every stage the objective of "people management"

is to attain the goal, but the difference isattaining that goal by emphasizing "what-thing".Only in SHRM, human capabilities and effort areconnected with the overall strategy of the firm andthe gaining of "competitive advantage" comes byusing the human resource. CONCLUDING REMARKS The review of the historical evolution of SHRMoffers a bewildering array of contribution fromdifferent sources over a time span of centuries. Astime passes by, one can visualize the changing huethat human beings undergo as a critical input to theprocess of productive activity. At the beginning ofcivilization, the human being was the sole actor inthe process of producing the things that wereneeded. The resources, natural and self-created, hadyet to emerge. The human being had no one else, andnothing else, to turn to except the energy providedby his own body. As human beings learned to harnessthe natural resources to serve their basic needs,the emphasis gradually shifted to things other thanself. Human ingenuity is in full form as it leads to thebuilding up of organized productive activitiesputting the resources to use. As thc effort ofutilizi,ng the natural resources goes on the humanbeing ends up being a resource himself. The longhistory of feuXalism where man ruled over thedestiny oftmen has its impact on the organizedproductive activities too. There is subjugation andoppression of labour by the owners to extract themaximum output. The philosophy and religion edictsserve to temper human greed and instil a sense ofmortality, ethics, and fair dealing in humanrelationship. The eternal conflict between good andevil is witnessed in the context of organizedproductive activities too. With modernization, where is essentially the resultof the centuries-old effort at harnessing resourcesin the service of humankind, the position of humanresource is established in management. Human beingsare now seen as one of the several resources that gointo the transformation from inputs to outputs inthe form of goods and services. Thus, the need formanaging human resources results in personnelmanagement emerging, and the discipline of personnelmanagement designed as an important functional areaof management takes shape. But the issue oflocating human being as a resource, on par withother inputs, is unresolved. It is left to theemergence of human resource management to give humanresource its due place as a key input - somethingmore than other resources. Human resource is viewed

more as "human" than a "resource". The human beingis seen as the fulcrum around which and by whom theresources are managed. At this stage, the external environment comes intothe picture as a vital consideration in internalmanagerial decision making. Human, resource becomesstrategic to organizational interests. The strategicdimension lends a high-level visibility to humanresources; that probably explains the emergence ofSHRM. Human resource is accepted as a criticalcomponent of a business firm's strategy designed toattain competitive advantage. The editorial in a recent issue of Harvard BusinessReview poses a question: why has the balance ofpower shifted so markedly away from the corporationand toward the individual? (HBR, Sept-Oct 1998, p6). Probably, we are coming back full circle fromwhere we started. The human being occupies thecentre stage so far as managing the organizedproductive activities is concerned. But this we dowith the benefit of the immense reservoir ofaccumulated knowledge and experience that has beenbuilt up. The human being, at an evolved stage, isthe arbiter of the corporate destiny. No wonder, welay an increasing emphasis on time and effort-savingtechniques. There is the realization that humanbeings within organizations need to be empowered totake decisions. The space provided to the humanresources within organizations needs to beincreased. SHRM is likely to focus on these issuesas we go along. No doubt, the complexity of managing human resourcesis likely to increase but so will the sophisticationof approaches and techniques for managing the humanresources. All in all, the review of the historicalevolution of SHRM offers interesting insights aswell as significant pointers to the shape of thingsto come.