HRM: Back to the future

Most practitioners in 'human resource management' today cannot remember the hype and hope for the new field of HRM in the early 1980's. Indeed, most were not even born. It was based on some kind of neo-liberal epiphany, that in an era when union membership was declining in the developed world, HRM could offer an alternative to adversarial employee relations.

Practitioners and academics in the field of personnel administration became intoxicated by the idea that they could finally emerge from the basement, be important, be relevant and be powerful. This myth was fuelled by first US and then UK academicians such as David Ulrich, who proposed the fundamentally flawed idea that the now newly named 'Human Resource' practitioners could be all things to all men and women. They were a jack-of-all personnel people: a strategic partner to management, an organizational change agent, an administrative expert and an employee champion. This view of the HR practitioner was as absurd as it was contradictory.

Former personnel administrators, however, for so long seen as the organizational police, jumped on this absurdity as a means of moving up a floor, or many floors, in the organization. They were suddenly to be recognized, not as the low-level clerks that they were, but as advisors to executives, cultural change agents and protectors of employees. Notwithstanding the fact that they had neither the ability, nor wit to perform anything close to these roles, the newly minted HR practitioner (now 'professional') was euphoric about the possibilities. They were to become zealots of the idea that they could advise and support business strategy, could develop organizational culture change strategies; deliver a first-class HR service to all organizational members AND protect employee interests and create a fantastic employee 'experience'.

All of this has turned out to be about as real as Harry Potter. Practitioners of 'HR' have neither the ability nor power to do any of the above. In a desperately narcissistic attempt to remain relevant and important the HR 'profession' has engaged in ridiculous name changing. HRM is now often 'People and Culture', the recruitment officer is a 'Talent advisor', training has become 'learning and development'.

All of these changes in nomenclature, however, are smoke and mirrors. What exactly does 'People and Culture' mean? The 'Talent Advisors' do exactly what 'recruitment officers' did with no innovation or 'talent' involved. And, as for those who undertake 'learning and development', particularly management/leadership development; they turn out the same old in the classroom-based nonsense that research has shown clearly has no impact whatsoever on manager-leader capability and performance. All of this indicates that HR practitioners have no innovative capabilities whatsoever and are ultimately doing the same thing that good old personnel administrators did 50 years ago. Furthermore, they show absolutely no ability to reflect on what they do - they are simply not able to.

'HRM', or whatever you want to call it, has become an insignificant sidebar in the context of the rapidly changing working world of the 21st century. The name-changing game is a reflection of its irrelevance and lack of purpose in the modern working environment.

As a 'strategic business advisor' it does not advise executives it bows to their whims. Its role in change is not to influence culture but to manage the fall-out of executive decisions: redundancy, job-loss, closure. As an administrative expert it continues as personnel management, measures absenteeism, turnover, payroll, compliance, judgement, policing. And, as an employee champion - well, this is just a sick joke.

Most HR jobs can be done more efficiently and just as badly by AI, so the days of the low-level HR clerk (which often includes HR managers) are numbered. The message for employees now is the same as it was 150 years ago. If you want to be represented in the workplace, join a Union. Unions are very far from perfect, but at least their purpose is clear, and you are less likely to be stabbed in the back.