Search results

Since the late 1970s, the study of the role, structure and functions of personnel management in the United Kingdom has been greatly facilitated by surveys emerging from a number of large‐scale surveys. A major interest in interpreting the data from these surveys has been to evaluate the impact of recession, and, latterly, recovery on the power, structure and roles of personnel departments and personnel specialists in recent years. The survey data are used comparatively to evaluate the empirical plausibility of the different scenarios which have arisen, and to account for the results that emerge.

The range of pressures which has impacted on local government in the 1980s has forced the emergence of dynamic and sophisticated forms of industrial relations at the workplace level. It is clear, however, that with conceptual tools forged to analyse developments in the private manufacturing sector, very few attempts have been made by academics, policy‐makers or commentators to discuss the structures and processes which have emerged. The character of the changes at authority level are considered using material from a survey of personnel officers in over a third of authorities in England and Wales and within the context of prevailing analytical and theoretical frameworks. It is argued that the distinctive development of the personnel function in local government has resulted in a managerial process which conforms to key features of the human resource management (HRM) model, in particular the devolution of personnel responsibilities to line managers and the integration of personnel concerns at the strategic level. However, other features of this model are less in evidence. The search for employee commitment and flexibility remains patchy and often appears as a practical response to labour market and competitive pressures. Furthermore, collectivist features of employee relations remain well entrenched with the continued encouragement of both union membership and involvement. This is not to deny change beyond the HRM model. Thus, it is clear that established joint machinery is becoming increasingly unable to deal with ongoing issues while the trade unions are gradually being forced into a consultative rather than a bargaining role.

In the last four years, since Volume I of this Bibliography first appeared, there has been an explosion of literature in all the main functional areas of business. This wealth of material poses problems for the researcher in management studies — and, of course, for the librarian: uncovering what has been written in any one area is not an easy task. This volume aims to help the librarian and the researcher overcome some of the immediate problems of identification of material. It is an annotated bibliography of management, drawing on the wide variety of literature produced by MCB University Press. Over the last four years, MCB University Press has produced an extensive range of books and serial publications covering most of the established and many of the developing areas of management. This volume, in conjunction with Volume I, provides a guide to all the material published so far.

States that in respect of organizations’ attempts to devolve operational HR management to line managers, and the reconfiguration of HR work in general, one area of HR work that has received relatively little attention is the state of work relations between HR and line managers involved in the operation and execution of HR policy. Any research that has been done has often been a‐theoretical. Reviews the literature in the field and examines the themes raised by means of an exploratory pilot case study. The case findings are that conflictual relations are seen to exist, but are seen to be negated by moves towards more consensual relations by both parties. Concludes that it is useful to seek to derive a wider research agenda than that which presently exists for HR‐line work relations (especially the need for further case work), and to stress the need for further theory development in the field, so as to examine consensual theories’ explanations of why such developments are occurring.

Traces the development of personnel management in Britain over four distinct periods from the late nineteenth century onwards, and identifies the economic, political, social and institutional forces in the growth of the function. Builds up a detailed profile of the personnel practitioner, covering demographic and remunerative data, qualifications, time spending and status in the enterprise. Critically discusses the role of the professional association and its occupational models. Finally examines the conceptual and operational distinctions between personnel management and human resource management in the British context.

Numerous management commentators have suggested that the 1980s have witnessed considerable change in employee relations at establishment level in Irish organizations. However, much of this analysis has been quite vague on the precise nature of such change. Employee relations management in Ireland has traditionally been associated with a strong collectivist, industrial relations emphasis. Attempts to evaluate the extent of change in management approaches to employee relations in the 1980s. In particular looks at issues such as developments in employment structure, flexibility and changing patterns of industrial conflict. Also considers the emergence of Human Resource Management (HRM) approaches in the Irish context.

Senior managers of industrial relations in large multi‐plant companies are faced by both centrifugal and centripetal forces and ask: “How can we achieve the benefits of decentralisation while at the same time maintaining centralised control?” In response to these countervailing pressures, senior managers create the appearance of autonomy for plant managers but in reality exercise centralised authority over major industrial relations decisions. To achieve this, managers at head office promote an ideology of decentralisation while actually practising central control. Local managers' autonomy on major industrial relations issues is largely a myth, perpetuated by formally decentralised management and bargaining structures, and techniques designed to enhance the independence of each plant. Central managers' authority is exercised by making all major decisions at head office and by co‐ordinating plant industrial relations through a variety of measures. Two factors are examined to explain this inconsistency between the levels of decision making over important issues and the level at which collective agreements are made—first, the changes in bargaining structure, and in particular the move towards single‐employer bargaining, and, second, developments in organisational structures and control techniques, especially those associated with divisionalised organisations.

Introduction There have recently been a number of articles arguing that the status of personnel management within the management hierarchy of many firms in Britain is increasing quite considerably. These articles have then gone on to discuss some of the general factors, such as the extensive programme of industrial relations legislation of the previous Labour Government, responsible for this change. However, beyond these fairly general statements on the status of personnel management our “hard evidence” on the subject is very much confined to single industry studies (i.e. engineering, chemicals) that have been almost solely concerned with the influence of one variable, that of establishment size, on the development of the personnel management function.

A distinction must be drawn between a dismissal on the one hand, and on the other a repudiation of a contract of employment as a result of a breach of a fundamental term of that contract. When such a repudiation has been accepted by the innocent party then a termination of employment takes place. Such termination does not constitute dismissal (see London v. James Laidlaw & Sons Ltd (1974) IRLR 136 and Gannon v. J. C. Firth (1976) IRLR 415 EAT).

Addresses the standardization of the measurements and the labels for concepts commonly used in the study of work organizations. As a reference handbook and research tool, seeks to improve measurement in the study of work organizations and to facilitate the teaching of introductory courses in this subject. Focuses solely on work organizations, that is, social systems in which members work for money. Defines measurement and distinguishes four levels: nominal, ordinal, interval and ratio. Selects specific measures on the basis of quality, diversity, simplicity and availability and evaluates each measure for its validity and reliability. Employs a set of 38 concepts ‐ ranging from “absenteeism” to “turnover” as the handbook’s frame of reference. Concludes by reviewing organizational measurement over the past 30 years and recommending future measurement reseach.