| Abstract: | Since the publication of the seminal American texts in the early-to-mid-1980s, we have witnessed several years of debate about the academic significance of human resource management (HRM). The debate has been made difficult by the definitional confusion surrounding the term itself. It would be wrong, however, to dismiss HRM on the basis of this confusion. This paper offers a review of the seminal and important works in the HRM canon. It organizes the literature into two broad strands of meaning. The first sees HRM as a practitioner movement or new pattern of management strategy in employment relations, typically emphasizing employee commitment and union substitution. The second sees HRM as a broadly based theoretical development concerned with the relationship between employee relations and strategic management in the firm. While recognizing the links between the two strands, this paper assesses the academic merits of each approach and reaches a series of conclusions on the problems and potential of the subject. |
