IndexAbstract“Early Beginnings”: 1400–1700“Personnel”: 1800“Labor Relations/Human Relations”: 1900–1970“Strategic Human Resource Management”: Since the 1990s 80 to dateAbstractWhat it is called Human resource management (HRM) today has had a long and eventful history. A number of key changes in the social and economic environment have influenced the evolution of human resource management, some of which will be highlighted in the following sections. Although many historians of human resource management begin with the 19th century, which was a period of rapid industrialization in the United States, we begin our analysis much earlier with the development of tribes and, later, apprenticeship and independent contractor systems of the period late medieval. Dulebohn, Ferris and Stodd, 1995; One reason is that we want to highlight changes in the employment relationship over time. This brief historical overview is not intended to be exhaustive; instead it provides a context for appreciating the strides we have made in what we now call “Human Resource Management.” In this special issue, we focus on the past and present of human resource management. Please note that a companion article to this special issue will be published later this year that will focus on the present and future of human resource management. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay "Early Beginnings": 1400-1700 Historically, human resource management was probably the first management function to evolve, preceding other functions such as finance, accounting, and marketing. Although undocumented, effective human resource management has undoubtedly occurred since the first organization of people into functioning units such as tribes. When tribes were formed and, in particular, when they evolved from hunting and then agriculture, a division of labor undoubtedly arose with the recognition of the different productivity of individuals. This development was a form of division of labor in which different people occupied different roles in the productive society. No doubt artisans emerged who could develop tools for farmers and be supported by the productivity of others engaged in agriculture, and a natural division of labor arose. In short, the productivity of various trades and occupations varied, and trade evolved to take advantage of these variations. Whether they were managed through the natural functioning of a market and a market allocation of production roles, or through the human resource management of a tribal leader, the problems of human resource management emerged. In the late 18th century the Industrial Revolution began in Europe and spread to the United States. This revolution completely changed the way individuals made a living and led to the transition from an agricultural society to an industrial or manufacturing society. Human skills and craftsmanship were replaced by machines and the factory system was born (Dulebohn et al., 1995). Factories and the manufacturing sector significantly improved production and changed labor relations. For example, these systems have replaced the system of independent contract self-employment and created permanent employees employed by organizations. At the same time, this led to the rationalization of work and another division of labor. Workers who had been skilled contractors became machine contractors and performed highly specialized routine tasks. The new production system also created the need to supervise large numbers of workers and workersmanagement practices tended to be autocratic and paternalistic (Dulebohn et al., 1995). Management expressed little concern for the safety or well-being of workers, and workers were controlled with force and fear (Slichter, 1919). This approach to management continued until the late 19th century. “Personal”: 1800s Around 1800, an English factory owner named Robert Owens modified a number of aspects of the employment relationship and developed “welfare to work” systems in order to improve both social and social relationships. and working conditions of workers (Dulebohn et al., 1995). In particular, he taught that his workers' temperance and cleanliness improved working conditions and they refused to employ young children (Davis, 1957). In some cases, these practices evolved into more elaborate paternalistic systems in which workers were provided with company housing, company stores, company schools, apprenticeships, pensions, life and accident insurance, hospitals, and libraries (Davis, 1957). Welfare-to-work systems can be defined as “anything aimed at the intellectual or social well-being and improvement of employees, beyond the wages paid, that is not an industry necessity or required by law” (US Bureau of Labor, 1919, page 8). These new systems were designed to promote good management and good worker relations, increase productivity, and avoid worker conflict and unionization (Dulebohn et al., 1995). Not surprisingly, these practices lay the foundation for many of the employee benefits that are used today to attract, motivate, and retain workers. They have also become the norm for many social security systems in Western nations. In the post-Civil War era (1860), labor management disputes began to occur. Employers wanted to fight unions and believed that changes in working conditions would improve performance (Dulebohn et al., 1995). As a result, welfare-to-work programs intensified, but these programs were actually designed to benefit businesses and not workers. As these programs grew in scope in the late 1800s, organizations hired welfare secretaries to administer them, and eventually, the role of the welfare secretary evolved into that of employment manager and, later, of “personnel manager”. The main functions of this role were to hire, fire, discipline and reward employees, which meant that line managers no longer had to focus on managing and maintaining the workforce. Many organizations began to implement paternalistic practices, but some employers mistreated employees, which led craftsmen and others to join protection societies later known as unions (Scarpello, 2008). As might be expected, employers resisted the growth of unions and took a variety of measures to limit unionization, including court injunctions or forcing applicants to sign yellow employment contracts indicating that they would not join a union. . “Labor Relations/Human Relations”: 1900s – 1970sWith the advent of manufacturing, employers looked for ways to improve efficiency and productivity. Engineers (e.g., Frederick Taylor), industrial and organizational psychologists (e.g., Lillian Gilbreath), sociologists (e.g., Max Weber), and management scholars (e.g., Heny Fayol) have focused on strategies for improving efficiency organizational and have developed new approaches to worker management. For example, the scientific management approach promoted by FrederickTaylor (1947) emphasized rationalization of work by studying work scientifically, breaking it down into components, and determining the best way to do the work. This approach reduced worker autonomy and emphasized that employees needed to be carefully supervised to ensure they performed the job exactly as expected. At the same time Max Weber (1927) suggested that organizational efficiency could be improved by using legitimate rules and authority systems. New workplace designs and resulting autocratic management systems generated even greater levels of conflict between workers and organizations. In the 1930s the National Labor Relations Act, the Norris-LaGuardia Act (1932), the Wagner Act (1935), and other legislation led to the growth of unions. As a result of increased unionization and the use of scientific management principles, personnel departments grew and focused on job analysis as the basis for selecting, training, evaluating work, and compensating employees. Additionally, the Wagner Act defined the New Deal system of industrial relations and “declared that the goal of public policy was to encourage the practice of collective bargaining, eliminate unequal bargaining power of workers, and introduce democratic due process rights for industry” (Kaufman, 1993, p. 61). In light of these policies, industrial relations (IR) departments have emerged in organizations to manage collective bargaining agreements (Dulebohn et al., 1995). World War II created exceptional demand for labor and temporarily slowed the growth of unions (Dulebohn et al., 1995). al., 1995). The war led to wage freezes and a ban on strikes, but after the war there was an increased need for human resource management. The post-war period brought renewed interest in trade unions and workers were determined to make up for lost wage increases. Additionally, federal labor laws and wage controls have created greater demand for personnel departments. Additionally, the growing power of unions and labor unrest led to the passage of the Taft Hartley Act. The act was designed to equalize power between labor and management. During the 1940s and 1950s, unions represented 47% of the U.S. workforce, and 95% of companies had at least one union (Dulebohn et al., 1995). At the same time, employers began to hire more educated personnel managers due to the constraints posed by unions and the need to manage the unionized workforce. In the 1930s, labor managers began to argue that conflict was not inherent in employment relationships but was caused by inadequate management and work systems. Accordingly, researchers have conducted a series of experiments to examine the effects of different work systems on worker productivity (Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939). These researchers found that social elements and workers' needs had a major impact on production and workers' well-being. This new approach was labeled the human relations movement and emphasized that workers have social needs. The Human Relations approach broadened the vision of human resource management beyond the individual and the job, and emphasized the work group and social structures of organizations (Dulebohn et al., 1995; Scarpello, 2008). In the 1950s, the Human Relations movement in the field of HRM challenged the assumption that people do not want to work and emphasized that human resources made an important contribution to.