Abstract
A diversity of opinion exists about the definition, intellectual boundaries, and major premises of the
fields of human resources management (HRM) and industrial relations (IR). To help provide a
common frame of reference for discussion and debate on the symposium topic, I endeavor in this paper to flesh out a consensus position on these matters. The method used is largely historical. Based on a review of the origins and evolution of the two fields from the early 20th century to the present day, I
show that human resources (HR) up to the early 1960s was typically considered to be a subfield of IR.
In more recent years, however, HR has largely severed its links with IR and now is widely regarded as
a separate, sometimes competing and sometimes complementary field of study. In the last part of the
paper I use this historical analysis, together with a review of the literatures in the two fields and the
findings and conclusions of the other papers in this symposium, to identity both the commonalities and
differences that distinguish the two fields in terms of their approach to science building (research) and
problem solving.
Defining HR and IR
As described more fully in a moment, the fields of HRM and IR as both subject areas in
university curriculums and vocational areas of practice in the business world were born in
North America in the late 1910s to early 1920s. In the beginning a plethora of names were
used to describe this broad subject area. Names commonly encountered include employment
management, labor management, personnel management, personnel administration, labor
relations, industrial relations, industrial relations management, and employment relations.
The term ‘‘human resource management’’ was not used, as far as I can tell, but the more
general term ‘‘human resources’’ was already employed to connote the idea that the nation’s
labor input is embodied in human beings and represents a form of capital good that can be
augmented through various forms of private and public investment, such as education,
training, and public health programs (Commons, 1919, p. 129).During the 1920s certain of these terms gained ascendancy and others largely disappeared
and, at the same time, a consensus slowly emerged about their meaning and content. All of
these terms somehow dealt with work, employment, and relations between employers and
employees.
Commonalities and differences
Commonalities
Focus on employment and workplace issues.
Gives attention to management, unions, and government policy.
Recognizes the humanness of labor.
Seeks positive-sum solutions to labor problems.
Are largely applied, multidisciplinary fields.
Have normative blind spots.
Difference
HR emphasizes employer’s solution to labor problems; IR emphasizes workers’ and community’s solutions.
HR largely takes an ‘‘internal’’ perspective on employment problems/research; IR largely takes an
‘‘external’’ perspective.
HR’s primary goal is organizational effectiveness/efficiency; IR’s goal is a combination of organizational
effectiveness/efficiency and employee well-being.
HR takes a ‘‘instrumental’’ approach to promoting employee interests; IR treats employee interests as an largely
important independent end goal.
HR focuses on creating a unity of interest between employer and employees; IR focuses on mediating a conflict
of interest.
HR views management power as necessary for organizational effectiveness/efficiency; IR assumes management
power needs checks and balances.
HR assumes conflict not inevitable and can be minimized by management; IR sees conflict as inevitable and
requiring third-party intervention. HR sees management as primary contributor to positive employment outcomes and unions and government as
occasionally necessary but often burdensome constraints; IR also sees management as key contributor but only
if supplemented by strong unions and government legislation.
Conclusion
In the introduction to this essay I noted that a good deal of controversy and uncertainty exists
as to the definitions and intellectual domains of HR and IR as fields of study and how the two
fields relate to each other. Largely through an historical analysis of the two fields’ respective
origins and developments, I have tried to shed further light on these matters. My claim is that
HR and IR in North America both have common roots in the late 1910s and arose in
universities and the business world as a progressive reform movement aimed at increasing the
efficiency, justice, and humanity of the workplace. This progressive heritage still provides a
common ethos for people in the two fields, as exemplified by the continuing effort of
researchers and practitioners to craft better solutions to a host of employment-related problems.
The HR and IR fields are also distinguished, however, by numerous differences in their
approach to research and practice. When the fields were born in the late 1910s, three
alternative ‘‘solutions’’ (or strategies) to employment problems were advanced: the ‘‘employ-
er’s,’’ the ‘‘workers’,’’ and the ‘‘community’s.’’ HR and IR envision a role for all three, but
the emphasis differs. The HR field focuses on the ‘‘employer’s’’ solution of personnel/HRM,
makes increased organizational effectiveness the primary goal, and examines the role
management and HRM practices can play in this process. IR also considers organizational
effectiveness an important goal but emphasizes, in addition, the independent importance of
protecting and promoting the interests of employees. Hence, while IR views employers as an
important actor in the employment relationship, considerable attention is also given to the
workers’ solution of trade unions and collective bargaining and the community’s solution of
labor legislation and social insurance.
References
Arensberg, C., Barkin, S., Chalmers, W., Wilensky, H., Worthy, J., & Dennis, B. (Eds.) (1957). Research in
industrial human relations. Madison, WI: Industrial Relations Research Association.
Bakke, E. W. (1958). The human resource function. New Haven, CT: Yale Labor-Management Center, Yale
University. [Reprinted in part In: E. Wight Bakke, et al. (Eds.), (1960). Unions, management, and the public,
2nd ed. (pp. 173 – 177). New York: Harcourt Brace.].
Eduindex News 