Therefore, there are only some distinctions between personal management and HRM according to the definitions above. To quote Armstrong “HRM is being promoted as a new approach which offers far more to chief executives than the conventional techniques of personnel management” (1988).
Firstly, the main difference between HRM and personnel management is the strategy of an organization. HRM strategy requires the organization to set some objectives to guide human resource, because human resource is treated as a key resource of an organization and management of this must has a sense of purpose and mission. Apart from this the strategy need to be linked to the other business strategy closely, such as competitive strategy, marketing strategy and production strategy. The organization defines what it wants done and how this can be met by the people it employs. Furthermore, shaping the organization into an integration and involvement system is an important part of the strategy. Thus, all of the programmes of the organization should be concerned and analyzed systematically when making the strategy. After this, all of the activities should be done following the strategy, which also needs to be monitored. HRM does not as personnel management which only focuses on problem-solving and mediation. In addition, the strategy should be flexible, which can to be changed or adjusted when the purpose of the organization is changing.
Secondly, corporate culture, which needs to be understood and managed as a key aspect of HRM, emphasizes to be built in HRM system. On the one hand, setting up a common interest between employer and employed could release a massive potential of initiative and commitment with in the workforce (Peter, Drucker, 1955). Furthermore, the personnel policies and procedures of the organization should be linked closely. At the same time, everyone in the organization should be involved in the achievement of the strategy, which will take great contribution to the organization. On the other hand, HRM emphasizes to build up an equal partnership between employers and employed, which is a mutuality system, all of the people in this system are equal when they are achieving the common aim of the organization. Pascale and Athos expressed a similar view that “the secrets of Japanese success and attributed much of it to the creation of powerful organizational cultures from which are derived shared values between management and workers which emphasize ‘mutuality’—a common interest in achieving excellence.” (1981). In addition, the culture of the organization should be managed. This means the culture can be adjusted or changed when the strategies of the organization is changing or reinforcing. Otherwise, the situation of personnel management is unlike. The personnel management does not emphasis to set up a common interest in the organization. The relationship between employers and employees is individual. Most staff does their works solely. They play as a proactive role on the position of their own, in order to escape to be fired or degraded.
Thirdly, the roles of HRM manager and personnel manager are dissimilar. HRM managers help their chief executive to get a vision for achieving success, which includes communicate missions, strategies and core values. All of these should get everyone involved. Then, the work of the HRM managers need to follow some actual programmes which are translated from the vision of chief executive. All of the programmes should be done systematically, such as analyzing the long-term organizational requirements, career-development, introducing performance standards, performance training, reward management and development programme. The HRM managers have a responsibility of integrating the whole organization, which organizes all of the members of the organization to work together for the common target. The HRM managers also have some abilities of motivating and developing the employees with the requirement of the organization’s culture. Moreover, all of the programmes can be accountable, which means that every actual process should be monitored and controlled. In contrast, the role of personnel managers is different, who always pay attention to problem-solve and arbitration. It follows that the personnel managers usually partly play as a clerk, partly as an intermediary, and partly as caseworker. What is more, they often use the way of coercion and menace to manage, whose work is complicated and less planning.
In conclusion, there are some dissimilarity between HRM management and personnel management, which appear in the organizational strategy, organizational culture and the role of manager of different modes. HRM emphasizes the importance of strategic approach which consists of planning, control, integration and management of the organization’s human resources. At the same time, its programmes need to be relevant to the organization’s culture, which own the common interest and equal partnership in the organization.
References
Armstrong, M. A handbook of human resource management, Kogan Page, 1988.
Drucker, Peter F. The practice of management, Heinemann, 1955.
Heery, Edmund and Noon, Mike. A dictionary of human resource management, Oxford University Press, 2001.
Mackay, Lesley and Torrington, Derek. The changing nature of personnel management, Institute of Personnel Management, 1986.
Pascale, Richard T. and Athos, Anthony G. The art of Japanese management, Simon and Schuster, 1981.