19th century  industrial revolution gave birth to the intentional and deliberate organization. Having reached inertia in the initial speedy  production the managers soon found out that it was the absence of deliberate man management  that was marring the progress. They  set about managing the human resources , in order to get the best  out of them. It was here that a firm and unbreakable link was discovered between the person and the organization. It was  superior organization with its deep consideration of the human resource that has given a clear edge to the western countries.

Recent Global Trends in HRM

The term human resource is variously defined in political economy and economics, where it was traditionally called labor, one of three factors of production. Its use within corporations continues to define common conceptions of the term.

Modern analysis emphasizes that human beings are not predictable commodity “resources” with definitions totally controlled by contract, but are creative and social beings that make contributions beyond “labor” to a society and to civilization. The broad term human capital has evolved to contain the complexity of this term, and in macroeconomics the term “firm-specific human capital” has evolved to represent the original meaning of term “human resources”.

Advocating the central role of “human resources” or human capital in enterprises and societies has been a traditional role of socialist parties, who claim that value is primarily created by their activity, and accordingly justifies a larger claim of profits or relief from these enterprises or societies. Critics say this is just a bargaining tactic, which grew out of various practices of medieval European guilds into the contemporary trade union and collective bargaining unit.

A contrary view, common to capitalist parties, is that it is the infrastructure capital and (what they call) intellectual capital owned and fused by “management” that provides most value in financial capital terms. This likewise justifies a bargaining position and a general view that “human resources” are interchangeable.

A significant sign of consensus on this latter point is the ISO 9000 series of standards, which requires a “job description” of every participant in a productive enterprise. In general, heavily unionized nations such as France and Germany have adopted and encouraged such descriptions especially within trade unions. One view of this trend is that a strong social consensus on political economy and a good social welfare system facilitates labor mobility and tends to make the entire economy more productive, as labor can move from one enterprise to another with little controversy or difficulty in adapting.

HRM and Organization – An Inter relationship 

In its most primitive sense, organization is a body of human beings, certain instruments and tools put together for attainment of shared goals.

[1]  Weber’s organization goes a step further to say “The main components of an organizing effort also include detailed procedures and rules, a clearly outlined organizational hierarchy, and mainly impersonal relationship between organization members”. Its fundamentals are the same as recognized by the early organization theorists. . Four fundamental ingredients are the qualifying organs of any organization. The modern organizations may have hundreds of sub factors but they will always be founded on these original ones.  It is therefore established that without the deliberate and planned participation of humans, an organization doesn’t exist.

Over a period of time various types and categories of organizations have come up to suit the requirements of organizers and planners, but essentially all of these belong to three basic categories.

United Nations Stance on HRM

Over time the United Nations have come to more generally support the developing nations’ point of view, and have requested significant offsetting “foreign aid” contributions so that a developing nation losing human capital does not lose the capacity to continue to train new people in trades, professions, and the arts including all sectors of professional advancement.

The debate regarding “human resources” versus human capital thus in many ways echoes the debate regarding natural resources versus natural capital. An extreme version of this view is that historical inequities such as African slavery must be compensated by current developed nations, which benefited from stolen “human resources” as they were developing. This is an extremely controversial view, but it echoes the general theme of converting human capital to “human resources” and thus greatly diminishing its value to the host society, i.e. “Africa”, as it is put to narrow imitative use as “labor” in the using society.

In the very narrow context of corporate “human resources”, there is a contrasting pull to reflect and require workplace diversity that echoes the diversity of a global customer base. Foreign language and culture skills, ingenuity, humor, and careful listening, are examples of traits that such programs typically require. It would appear that these evidence a general shift to the human capital point of view, and an acknowledgement that human beings do contribute much more to a productive enterprise than “work”: they bring their character, their ethics, their creativity, their social connections, and in some cases even their pets and children, and alter the character of a workplace. The term corporate culture is used to characterize such processes.

An important controversy regarding labor mobility illustrates the broader philosophical issue with usage of the phrase “human resources”: governments of developing nations often regard developed nations that encourage immigration or “guest workers” as appropriating human capital that is rightfully part of the developing nation and required to further its growth as a civilization. They argue that this appropriation is similar to colonial commodity fiat wherein a colonizing European power would define an arbitrary price for natural resources, extracting which diminished national natural capital.

Performance appraisals are one of the least liked and most dreaded responsibilities that any manager has to endure.
They’re worse than terminations. After you fire someone, they’re gone; but after a performance review, they’re still around. Staring at you. Resenting you. Challenging you and sometimes even subverting your ability to manage the group. Some managers will go to great lengths to avoid doing reviews.
I’m of a different opinion. I believe that performance management can be an enjoyable and rewarding process. Yes, I said enjoyable. I’ll go so far as to say that I think performance management can be as enjoyable as the Thanksgiving Day Parade. Keep that thought in mind as I describe a six-step approach (use the acronym PARADE to remember it) that can alleviate much of the worry and dread associated with performance management.
Step one: Preparation.
The key to success in any endeavor is preparation. In this case, preparation means sitting down and creating objectives for the performance period. We’ve got to ensure that people know what’s expected of them if we ever expect them to achieve it.
Think of setting objectives as a road map with a set of directions. The road map is your organization, or your industry, and the directions lead employees to their goal. If people don’t know where they’re going, how can we ever expect them to get there? How will they know when they’ve arrived? It’s also critical to get employees’ input on their own objectives if we want to increase their commitment to achieving those goals. If people feel that they have a voice in their assignments, they will frequently work harder toward the success of those assignments.
Step two: Assessment.
A critical manager responsibility is assessing and giving timely feedback to your staff on their performance. There are many benefits to doing this. Feedback on performance that is given as soon as possible has proven to be the most effective. It’s not fair or effective to tell someone how she messed up, or (more rarely) how well she did, weeks after the job is done. Let people know quickly so they can either address the error or replicate the success.
This also addresses two of the most common fears that managers have about performance appraisals: confrontations and surprises. Many managers avoid delivering performance reviews because they fear confrontation. They see it as an “us versus them” event. This is usually a result of a lack of communication between the manager and staff.
If the performance review is the only time that managers talk with staff about how they’re doing, and especially if employees feel that this one meeting has tremendous impact on their salary increases, the meeting takes on enormous proportions. With all the tension in the room, how can it be a successful interchange? Most employees, when questioned as to what the once-a-year review reminded them of, responded, “A trip to the principal’s office.” Ongoing communication throughout the year is the key to reducing the fear and anxiety associated with this meeting for both participants.
When asked what they want out of the performance review meeting, both managers and staff most often respond, “No surprises.” This is what I hear even more often than a hope for the highest rating. Not everyone expects to be a superstar, but people want to know how they are doing. They don’t want to have it sprung on them at the last minute, when they no longer have the opportunity to do anything about it. They want to be treated with respect and as partners throughout the performance cycle.

Continuous assessment and feedback is the key to ensuring that there are no surprises, which of course also lessens the likelihood of a confrontation. Surprises beget confrontations. Communication prevents them.
Step three: Reviewing documents.
Before you actually do sit down with the employee, review all your documentation from the year. Take a look again at the objectives that you and the employee agreed to and documented at the beginning of the year. Look for any commendations or letters you may have received about the employee during the year.
Review your notes from the meetings that you’ve had with the employee. Then sit down and write the first draft of the performance review. Some organizations offer the employee the opportunity to create a first draft as well. Then the manager and the employee sit down to review the employee’s progress before the actual review. This keeps the employee involved in the process and makes him feel that he’s getting a fair evaluation. It’s another great technique for reducing or eliminating surprises.
Step four: Appropriate setting.
Make sure that you have an appropriate setting in which to deliver the appraisal. The most commonly used location, a manager’s office, is often the worst place. It’s not neutral territory (remember that principal’s office analogy), and no matter how much rapport-building you do or how long you’ve worked with the employee, it’s still “your turf.”
A conference room is often best, but if that’s not available, find some other place. Be creative. The cafeteria may not seem like a very private place, but in between mealtimes, it’s often possible to find a secluded table in a corner. You want the setting to relax employees, not add to their anxiety. This is one reason to avoid restaurants. Some managers choose to do appraisals over lunch. It’s a way to reward the employee, but restaurants at lunch are far from private. Even employees who expect positive reviews seldom feel particularly hungry when they go into this meeting.
Consider meeting in the employee’s office if it has a door, or borrowing a colleague’s office. Meeting somewhere other than your office also makes it easier to end the meeting. Getting someone out of your office when the review is completed, particularly if the person thinks there is more to discuss, can be particularly onerous. It tends to reek of dismissal. This can undercut even the most positive of appraisals.
Step five: Deliver it clearly.
Deliver the appraisal in simple language. Don’t use code or jargon, and don’t mince words. Don’t dance around the issue at hand even if the appraisal is not as positive as the employee might have hoped. She’ll pick up on your discomfort like a shark sensing blood in the water. If she feels that you’re not confident in your appraisal, she may think that there is a last-minute chance to improve it. This isn’t a meeting to renegotiate the objectives or the standards for performance that were set at the beginning of the year.
This advice on clarity goes for both good news and bad! When it comes to good news, some managers avoid it because they’re afraid to tell an employee she has done a good job. “What if I have to fire her someday?” they ask. I tell them that if the employee has done a good job, tell her so. If you have to fire that employee someday, you will have a good reason why. You’ll be able to explain it to the employee because you will have developed the necessary communication skills.
More often, managers feel a need to hide the bad news. They’re afraid to hurt the employee’s feelings, they fear an argument, or they just don’t like to talk about someone’s shortcomings. Many managers feel that if the employee hasn’t done as well as expected or hoped, this is a poor reflection on the manager. If someone’s performance has been subpar, managers owe it to the employee, the organization, and themselves to inform the employee.
By glossing over employees’ performance deficits or inflating their ratings to spare their feelings, managers are actually exposing the company and themselves to great liability. If managers have been doing the assessment and feedback throughout the year, there is little likelihood that there will be any confrontation or conflagration at the review meeting. Tell people straight out what they’ve done well and where they need to improve. They’ll respect you for it, and your credibility and standing as a manager will rise because of it.
Step six: Encouragement.
At the conclusion of the performance appraisal meeting, which also marks the end of one performance appraisal cycle and the beginning of the next, your job is to encourage. You want to motivate the employee to continue doing that which he does well and to improve in the areas where there is room for growth. This is the best way to make these meetings productive and positive. Even if the person’s appraisal has not been as high as he might have hoped, remind the employee that he is still valued and that you’ll support him in his development.
Offer to set up a separate meeting at which you will discuss his development plan. This is a terrific way to let the employee know that you support him and are willing to invest your time and the organization’s training dollars in his growth in the company. The performance management process is actually the organization’s best retention tool. Too often, when employees get a less-than-stellar appraisal, they take it as an indication that this is the beginning of the end. This is the first step on that dreaded “Documentation Trail” that can only lead to the door. Let them know that you believe in them and their ability to improve. Your willingness to work with and invest in them is a wonderful turnaround tool to effect an attitude adjustment.
• Prepare to manage performance by carefully setting objectives. Assess and give feedback on performance throughout the year. Review all pertinent documentation before meeting with the employee. Appropriate place to deliver the appraisal away from interruptions or distractions. Deliver the appraisal clearly, allowing for the employee to respond in a dialogue. Don’t mince words or use code. Encourage employees to do more of what they do well and improve where they can. Make them feel valued.

In any organization in general, and in those with conservative management environment in particular, any change effort invites resistance from various directions, most importantly from within, because the managers feel threatened to lose power, whereas most of the work force have the fear of losing the job or some of the benefits in a changed, efficiency-based, result-oriented work environment. Therefore, for successful transformation efforts, a holistic, people-focused approach encompassing formal aspects such as structure and systems, as well as informal aspects, such as culture, communications, employee welfare, etc. is needed.

Over time it has transpired that traditional hierarchical “command and control” organizations have been unsuccessfully struggling to gain an edge over their competitors, whereas comparatively progressive organizations with flatter structures, which involved their employees during the conceptualization, planning and implementation stages of change, succeeded in achieving far better results to meet the growing demands for quality and flexibility through popular change brought about through empowerment of its employees. The desired results form change can not be achieved without the involvement and ownership of the change by its employees. Therefore, it is imperative that before thinking of bringing about any change for betterment, efforts are made to create a sense of ownership amongst the employees of the organization. Such sense of ownership can be created through a number of measures, such as (a) creating a spirited, innovative, learning environment where people are continuously looking for new ways to satisfy customers, and have the liberty to experiment their innovative ideas; (b) affording small personal favours to employees, and caring about their well being; and (c) decentralization and delegation of various functions to grossroots level, which essentially means that the employees should be given more autonomy to take initiative and calculated risks when needed, without getting the permission of their seniors and without any fear of reprimand. 

Empowered and talented workforce is the prime ingredient of organizational success. A critical feature of successful teams is that they enjoy a high level of empowerment or decision making authority. New knowledge based firms are flat in hierarchical structure, where employees not only can operate with minimal supervision and take the right decisions at the right time at their own, but also have a degree of freedom in managing their professional growth. The managers provide an enabling environment wherein the employees can select appropriate training courses for themselves to enhance their capabilities and skill level. The managers assume more of a leadership, coaching, and mentoring role and provide employees with resources and working conditions they need to accomplish the agreed goals of the team and the organization.

Form the above discussion, it trickles down that remaining competitive in any business in the present day business environment is possible only through change to keep pace with the changed realities, and the change can not be effective without the involvement and empowerment of the employees of the organization. If the employees feel good about themselves, they are more creative and productive, and they do not work hard because they are required to, but because they want to. In other words, employee empowerment, can be and should be used as a vehicle for change to achieve the desired results.