PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Project Management



Project Management

Introduction

The model of national and European government human resource management (H.R.M) has been described as a hybrid of the 'ideal type' model. One reason why this hybrid was formed is the different objectives of the ideal H.R.M and those of H.R.M as determined by new public management (N.P.M).

It might be thought that these objectives should be the same as N.P.M and H.R.M share many characteristics, such as, the focus on the role of line management to improve organisational performance. However, there are aspects of H.R.M and N.P.M, which differ and even conflict. An example of this conflict is the tendency of N.P.M in national and European government for short-term planning as opposed to H.R.M's need for long-term strategic planning. The 'excellence' literature promised that should an organisation adopt the parts that comprise H.R.M it would benefit from the rewards that come with this approach to people management. However, taking the 'excellence' argument to have some value, the same benefits attributed to H.R.M might not be true of a hybrid form in which some of these components are missing or critically changed (Guest, 1990, pp. 377-397).

There is little doubt that the nature of the relationship between employee and employing organisation is different in the public sector to that found in the private sector. The traditional form of people management in national and European government was paternalistic and collegiate, a style which was to change radically with the arrival of Compulsory Competitive Tendering (C.C.T), which caused relationships to become contractual and often even one of conflict. H.R.M was introduced to the national and European government in such a way that national councils adopted its message in a piecemeal fashion (Stewart, 1995, pp. 44-55). H.R.M came to have a different meaning in different councils with its form defining the way individual employees related to their employers. The form of H.R.M also reflected the way in which employee and industrial relations have evolved in different councils over many years. The impact and form of N.P.M further influenced the interpretation that councils placed on H.R.M (Guest, 1989a, pp. 48-51).

This poses the question of what employment related values may have been lost during the introduction of H.R.M and N.P.M and the departure of traditional personnel management (Keenoy, 1990b). Keenoy (1990b) sees the agenda underpinning H.R.M as being distinct from that of traditional personnel management, however, this appearance might be deceptive (Beatty, 1999, pp. 111-118). The four functions set out below form the basic characteristics of H.R.M and will appear throughout the discussion on the form of H.R.M in national government below.

These four functions represent the anchor stones of H.R.M (Guest, 1989a, pp. 48-51). The first item in this table, the integration of human resources management with the corporate business strategy, lies at the heart of H.R.M. In real terms, effective integration means that staff selection, appraisal, reward systems and other common functions of H.R.M are in alignment with and meet the needs of the business ...