HRM Evolution-India Indian experts account growth since 1920 This period related to post I-World War difficult conditions that called for State intervention & Trade Unions. The Royal Commission (1931)- recommended to appoint of Lab-Welfare-Officer for selection of workers & settling grievances The Factories Act, 1948- compulsory Welfare officer (workers 500 & 500+) In course of time: Two Professional Bodies set up. IIPM ( Kolkota ) & NILM (Mumbai), premier Traditional Industrial Centers.

Post II- World War & Indian independence- witnessed increased ‘Awareness & Expectations’ of workers During 1960s Personnel Function began expanding beyond ‘ Labor welfare’  Labor welfare, IR& Per-Administration merged into emerging profession – Per. Management (PM) Shift in focus towards Professionalisation of MGT. -Massive thrust to heavy industry (II-Five Year Plan) & accelerated growth of public sector in Indian economy 1970s-Shift in Professional Values – Focus from welfare to focus on Efficiency 980s-New Technologies, HRM challenges, HRD- Talk of Professionals 1980s-IIPM and NILM merged, birth of National Institute of Personnel Management (NIPM)1990- ASPM (USA) change to Society for Human Resource Management 1990s-Emphasis Shift to ‘ Human values & productivity through people’ Human resource management Evolution of personnel management Chronological Growth of Per. Management (i) Era of Industrial Revolution (ii) Era of Trade Unionism (iii) Era of Social Responsibility Feeling (iv) Scientific Management Era (v) Industrial. Psychology Era (incl. Human Relations) (vi) The Behavioral Era vii) Personnel Specialist Era Contents * Scientific Management Has: * Taylor’s Approach After 30 Years Popularity * Era is an Outgrowth of Human Relations Studies * Behavioral Sciences include * Three Popular Theories * The Present day Personnel management: Entrusted with 3-Chief Responsibilities * Conclusively * HRM Evolution-India * Indian experts account growth since 1920 * HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT more LinkCitationEmailPrintFavoriteCollect this page (i) Era of Industrial Revolution Modern P. M evolved from number of significant inter-related developments prior to beginning of Industrial Revolution.

Prior to IRE existed several distinct Employer-Employee Relationships. Termed as Slaver, Guild System Initial State of Guild System seeded Per. Mgt for well-knit groups (Masters, Traveling journeymen & Apprentices) System involved “ selection, Trg, development, rewarding, maintaining workers” ‘Wage Salary Admn & Collective Barging’ over wage & working conditions were in evidence. But Economic& Social changes Overtook Old Eco-Soc-Political System. Indl-Revolution used Mech. Energy/ Machines consequently start of factories with Larger workforce Productive power/ man increased

Machine efficiency triggered further sub division of labor Led to specialization in One-Task than skills in No. of Jobs IRE Expanded Mass Production Mod. Indl Corporations Applied Science & Tech to all Facets of Work  It affected Personnel Admn. System Profusely: Work Place – home to Common Roof Production Methods-Manual skills to Machine skills Migration-Rural to Urban concentration Separation- of Owners &Managers, Employer-employee affected Mechanization- Women & child labor replaced Men Complexity of Prodn-Process & Adv-Tech : New class of employees commanding power in Coy.

New Jobs suited white collars/ managerial groups replacing Blue collars /artisans Specialization- produced Specialists: Engineers/Lab-Relation Mgrs/Safety Engineers Ills of IRE: Small Dingy Factories Concentration of people & Machines Unhygienic & Unsatisfactory Working Conditions Working Hours: 11 hrs-Adult, 15 hrs-Child Government – Non-interfering Labor looked upon – Commodity to be bought & sold Division of Work -Monotony & Boredom, no pride in jobs Rules-Strict Discipline Bondage- Live by clock or else fired

IRE: Brought Heights of Business & Economy but materialism, monotony, discipline, boredom, job displacement, work interdependence, poor working conditions, average citizen/ labor exploitation (ii) Era of Trade Unionism Shortly after Advent of Factory System, collected, discussed common Probs. Initially Child Labor, Long work Hours Later, Economic, Employee Benefits, Poor Working Conditions Workers Joined commonly to ‘Improve Their Lot’ Underlying philosophy- Force Mgt to listen & redress their Grievances Weapon-Strikes, Slowdowns, Walkouts, Picketing, Boycotts, Sabotage Influenced-Personnel Management in areas:

Adopting Grievance Handling System, Accept Arbitration as a means of Resolving Conflicts & Rights, Disciplinary Practices, Employee Benefit Prog, Liberalize Holiday & Vacation Time, Clear Definition of Job Duties/ Job Rights through Seniority, Installing Rational, and Defensible Wage structures Managements Created: Organizational Units to deal “ Union-Representative Relationships” Sponsoring Unions as a means to controlling their Activities Facilities, consequent to wage hike issues, to Study jobs, Improving methods, Connecting wage to performance, Careful selection of personnel iii) Social Responsibility Feeling Era In the past, Employers were not very sympathetic towards employees Robert Owen (1913) – A British Businessman, Reformer, Humanitarian, pioneered fatherly attitude towards the employees Robert Owen believed that: The Principal Socio-economic Environments influence Physical, Mental, Psychological development of workers To enhance productivity – improve Environment by providing more of Satisfactory Living/Working Conditions Devote More attention to Vital Machine (workers) than to Inanimate Machine Owen Implemented Philosophy By: Building Model Villages next his Mills.

Factory- unheard facilities:  Windows, Ventilations, Shower Bath, & Clean Toilets Schools- Day (children), Night (workers) Child Labor- Min. Age Raised to 11yrs, later abolished Treated Workers- as own children who must be cautiously guided, trained, & protected Other humanitarians supported  views, like: ‘If each one work for his own economic self-interest, Society will gain’- Adam Smith ‘Emphasis on Mutuality of Interests between Employer-Employee and on Division of Labor to enhance productivity on use of resources;- Charles Babbage “Hard work high productivity were source of good wages and higher rofits for employers” concept of Charles Babbage denounced by Unionisation (iv) Scientific Management Era Movement Began in 1900, Peaked in1930, Dwindled in Relative Importance, Remained Alive to Present Times Owes to Frederick W. Taylor (1856-1955)- Father of Scientific Management He started Experiments in Steel industry (Midvale & Bethelem Plants) Taylor Developed Four Principles of Mgt: The Development of a True Science for each job Scientific selection of: Right Person for Right Job Train a Person to Perform Job in a Scientific Manner Friendly Cooperation Between MGT & MEN.

Taylor Believed that: ‘Planning be the Result of Mgt-Worker Cooperation, incentive provisions be made to compensate workers Financially’ ‘Worker were untapped-energy source to be utilized if trained and treated fairly’ ‘Anticipated the Modern Suggestion System & Recommended Cash Bonuses for Developed Suggestions from workers ideas’ By Scientific Measurement of Work most of sources of Mgt-Workers conflicts disappear – Time study, method Study Job classifications, Standardization of Tools, Differential piece-rate System etc. Scientific Management Has:

Had great influence on Management and Employee- Employer Relationships Elevated MGT. by Plan, System, Design  but declined Mgt. by Hunch/ Intuition Professioalised Management Taylor’s Approach Improved / Led to: Management Methods, Procedures & Supervision Strengthened Production & Supervision Labor-Mgt. Consensus on Mutual Benefits of Productivity – More Profit for Mgt, more Money & Better lives to Workers Separate Discipline called “ Human Engg” It Studies, ‘People At Work and Of Work Methods’ Studies, Equipment Design, Pacing of Work, Hours of Work, Environment of Conditions of Work.

Purpose: To Improve PRODUCTIVITY & JOB SATISFACTION Taylor’s Approach After 30 Years Popularity As it led to know that Mgt. Problems were result of ‘Human & not Mech. Factors’ Taylor’s Approach Stressed: Need for Techniques that ensure higher performance at work &  Eliminate unnecessary movements gave greater importance to Technology than ‘Men at work. Fragmentation of operation/ Mechanistic conception at work led to Alienation, Frustration, Conflicts, and loss of Production This experience invited New Thinkers Douglas McGregor in U. S. A and Eric Trist in U.

K They pointed out “ Best Results were obtained when Human Beings were treated in Totality of their Physical & Psychological Characteristics” Henry Gantt, Frank & Lillian Gilbreth Modified Taylor’s views: Gantt propounded “Task  & Bonus System”- worker paid Hourly Guaranteed Rate + 20% on touching Std-Output + High Pc-Rate for crossing Std-Output” Frank Gilbreth extensively used ‘Motion Picture of Task done analyzing Body movements, led to Popular ‘ Laws of Efficient Motions’ Lillian Gilbreth produced First time book “ Psychology of Mgt”- application of Psychology to the Principles of Scientific management v) Indl. Psychology  & HR Era Psychologists Entered for Systematic Study of  Personnel Problems Father of Indl. Psychology Hugo Munsterberg His Book ‘Psychology & Indl. Efficiency’ Owes Development of Indl. Psychology His Notable Contributions -Analyzing Jobs in terms of ‘Mental & Emotional Requirements’ and ‘Development of Testing Devises’ Advances witnessed in Areas of  – Selection, Placement, Testing, Trg. & Research Practices Indl. Psychology Introduced & Emphasized:

Matching Employees to Jobs – Diff Jobs need Diff Skill & Abilities Use of Personnel Testing, Interviewing, Attitude Measurement, Learning Theory, Trg. , Failure & Monotony study, Safety, Job Analysis and Human Engg. But Major Applications  Areas – Recruitment, Testing for Employment, Job replacement, Promotion & Trg Human Relation Movement Outcome of Reaction Against Impersonality of Scientific Management “Human Resources M. Imptt. Valuable Assets without which other Resources are useless”- Top Mgt. Personnel.

Elton Mayo, Roethlisberger, Dickson Conducted  Experiments at Hawthorne Works, Western Electric, Chicago (Late1920s- Early 1930). Over many centuries India has absorbed managerial ideas and practices from around the world. Early records of trade, from 4500 B. C. to 300 B. C. , not only indicate international economic and political links, but also the ideas of social and public administration. The world’s first management book, titled ‘Arlhashastra’, written three millennium before Christ, codified many aspects of human resource practices in Ancient India.

This treatise presented notions of the financial administration of the state, guiding principles for trade and commerce, as well as the management of people. These ideas were to be embedded in organisational thinking for centuries (Rangarajan 1992, Sihag 2004). Increasing trade, that included engagement with the Romans, led to widespread and systematic governance methods by 250 A. D. During the next 300 years, the first Indian empire, the Gupta Dynasty, encouraged the establishment of rules and regulations for managerial systems, and later from about 1000 A.

D. Islam influenced many areas of trade and commerce. A further powerful effect on the managerial history of India was to be provided by the British system of corporate organisation for 200 years. Clearly, the socio cultural roots of Indian heritage are diverse and have been drawn from multiple sources including ideas brought from other parts of the old world. Interestingly, these ideas were essentially secular even when they originated from religious bases.

In the contemporary context, the Indian management mindscape continues to be influenced by the residual traces of ancient wisdom as it faces the complexities of global realities. One stream of holistic wisdom, identified as the Vedantic philosophy, pervades managerial behaviour at all levels of work organisations. This philosophical tradition has its roots in sacred texts from 2000 B. C. and it holds that human nature has a capacity for self transformation and attaining spiritual high ground while facing realities of day to day challenges (Lannoy 1971).

Such cultural based tradition and heritage can have a substantial impact on current managerial mindsets in terms of family bonding and mutuality of obligations. The caste system, which was recorded in the writings of the Greek Ambassador Megasthenes in the third century B. C. , is another significant feature of Indian social heritage that for centuries had impacted organisational architecture and managerial practices, and has now become the focus of critical attention in the social, political and legal agenda of the nation.

One of the most significant areas of values and cultural practices has been the caste system. Traditionally, the caste system maintained social or organisational balance. Brahmins (priests and teachers) were at the apex, Kshatriya (rulers and warriors), Vaishya (merchants and managers) and Shwdra (artisans and workers) occupied the lower levels. Those outside the caste hierarchy were called ‘untouchables’. Even decades ago, a typical public enterprise department could be dominated by people belonging to a particular caste.

Feelings associated with caste affairs influenced managers in areas like recruitment, promotion and work allocation (Venkatranam ; Chandra 1996). Indian institutions codified a list of lower castes and tribal communities called ‘scheduled castes and scheduled tribes’. A strict quota system called, ‘reservation’ in achieving affirmative equity of castes, has been the eye of political storm in India in recent years. The central government has decreed 15 per cent of recruitment is to be reserved for scheduled castes, and a further seven and half per cent for scheduled tribes.

In addition, a further 27 per cent has been decreed for other backward castes. However, the liberalisation of markets and global linkages have created transformation of attitudes towards human resource (HR) policies and practices (Khalilzadeh-Shirazi ; Zagha 1994, Gopalan ; Rivera 1997). Faced with the challenge of responding to the rationale of Western ideas of organisation in the changing social and economic scenario of Indian organisation, practitioners are increasingly taking a broader and reflective perspective of human resource management (HRM) in India.

Human Resources in India HR in India is a comparatively new function – in fact, the free capitalist market in India is a comparatively new idea. It may be tough to imagine, but capitalism was seen as a vehicle of oppression by Indian freedom fighters. That’s because colonialism arrived in India under the guise of a trading firm – The East India Company. That is why India’s freedom leaders embraced socialism and government owned enterprises were the organizations that thrived between 1950 and 1990.

However there were some large private organizations which had existed from the 19th century which were Indian owned – traditional trading houses that had ventured into manufacturing and marketing goods. One of them particularly, the Tata group (http://www. tata. com) was a pioneer in people management principles. The Tatas looked after their employees, often building civic amenities where their Steel and Motor plants existed. Eventually with the dawn of competitiveness in the 1990s – such paternalistic measures had to be cut back, but yet the human hand of such firms is quite visible.

However, it was the Public Sector Units (PSUs) which in the 1970s explored cutting edge OD concepts starting with T-Groups and Organizational Change initiatives – driven by HR thinkers like Udai Pareek, TV Rao and others. In fact, Dr. Pareek was one of the first people to be certified as a facilitator by the NTL of the US. As he writes (http://www. isabs. org/mem4. shtml) some of the OD stalwarts from the US –  like Doulas McGregor, Warren Bennis and others were involved in the development of HR and OD as a discipline in India.

Post 1991 when liberalization took place – liberalization being the word for opening up the protected economy and letting external businesses come in that businesses and along with it HR really took off. New Indian organizations started in the 1970s and 1980s suddenly took flight, particularly in the area of IT and the new business of Business Process Outsourcing. Old MNCs like IBM and Coca Cola (which had been kicked out by an extremely socialist government in the late 1970s) came back to the country – and along with them came the blue chip Investment Banking and Management Consulting firms.

When the times boomed India faced a perpetual talent crunch, the same talent being vied for by different industries – young, English speaking – they wanted to mould that talent to meet their needs and money (as usually happens) became the differentiator for people to join – along with the promise of heady growth. HR today in India stands at a cross roads – primarily driven by the HR talent shortage – which is caused by very few good institutes offering HR education (http://www. gautamblogs. com/2007/08/hr-talent-shortage. tml) Larger MNC and large Indian firms can afford and pay for highly talented HR professionals – and HR salaries are climbing to new high levels However there is a huge market in the Small and Medium sized enterprises whose growth is being hampered because of critical HR competencies/ talent missing Some organizations are looking at building their own HR talent pools – specially those with a huge internal recruiting workforce, since in India for an undergrad recruiting is easy to start a HR career – and in looking to get higher level managers from other functions (like the CFO http://www. autamblogs. com/2006/04/mohandas-pai-takes-over-as-infosyss-hr_26. html ! ) to head HR So if you’re an HR professional looking at your next career challenge- why don’t you head to India? We’re still growing at around 6% of GDP  ? and some industries are still clocking double digit growth!