Human resources is a term with which many organizationsdescribe the combination of traditionally administrativepersonnel functions with performance, Employee Relationsandresourceplanning. The field draws upon conceptsdeveloped in Industrial/Organizational Psychology. Humanresources has at least two related interpretations dependingon context. The original usage derives frompoliticaleconomyandeconomics, where it was traditionally calledlabor, one of fourfactors of production. The more commonusage withincorporationsandbusinessesrefers to theindividuals within the firm, and to the portion of the firm'sorganization that deals with hiring, firing, training, and otherpersonnel issues. This article addresses both definitions. To allow the HR of an organization to update the employeedetails when ever there is a change in the employee profilepertaining to that organization. To bring onto a string theemployee specific suggestions and make them free to posttheir requirements to the HR thus bringing the organizationmore specific regarding the maintenance of the organization.
Modern analysis emphasizes that human beings are not"commodities" or "resources", but are creative and socialbeings in a productive enterprise. The 2000 revision of ISO9001in contrast requires to identify the processes, theirsequence and interaction, and to define and communicateresponsibilities and authorities. In general, heavily unionizednations such asFranceandGermanyhave adopted andencouraged such job descriptions especially within tradeunions. One view of this trend is that a strong socialconsensus on political economy and a goodsocial welfaresystemfacilitateslabor mobilityand tends to make theentire economy more productive, as labor can move from
one enterprise to another with little controversy or difficultyin adapting.An important controversy regarding labor mobility illustratesthe broader philosophical issue with usage of the phrase"human resources": governments of developing nationsoften regard developed nations that encourage immigrationor "guest workers" as appropriating human capital that isrightfully part of the developing nation and required tofurther its growth as acivilization. They argue that thisappropriation is similar tocolonial commodity fiatwherein acolonizing European power would define an arbitrary pricefornatural resources, extracting which diminished nationalnatural capital. The debate regarding "human resources" versus humancapital thus in many ways echoes the debate regardingnatural resources versus natural capital. Over time theUnited Nationshave come to more generally support thedeveloping nations' point of view, and have requestedsignificant offsetting "foreign aid" contributions so that adeveloping nation losing human capital does not lose thecapacity to continue to train new people in trades,professions, and the arts.An extreme version of this view is that historical inequitiessuch asAfrican slaverymust be compensated by currentdeveloped nations, which benefited from stolen "humanresources" as they were developing. This is an extremelycontroversial view, but it echoes the general theme of converting human capital to "human resources" and thusgreatly diminishing its value to the host society, i.e. "Africa",as it is put to narrow imitative use as "labor" in the usingsociety.In a series of reports of the UN Secretary-General to theGeneral Assembly over the last decade [e.g. A/56/162(2001)], a broad inter sectoral approach to developinghuman resourcefulness has been outlined as a priority for
socio-economic development and particularly anti-povertystrategies. This calls for strategic and integrated publicpolicies, for example in education, health, and employmentsectors that promote occupational skills, knowledge andperformance enhancement.In the very narrow context of corporate "human resources",there is a contrasting pull to reflect and requireworkplacediversitythat echoes the diversity of a global customer base.Foreign language and culture skills, ingenuity, humor, andcareful listening, are examples of traits that such programstypically require. It would appear that these evidence ageneral shift to the human capital point of view, and anacknowledgment that human beings do contribute muchmore to a productive enterprise than "work": they bring theircharacter, their ethics, their creativity, their socialconnections, and in some cases even their pets and children,and alter the character of a workplace. The termcorporatecultureis used to characterize such processes. The traditional but extremely narrow context of hiring, firing,and job description is considered a 20th centuryanachronism. Most corporate organizations that compete inthe modern global economy have adopted a view of humancapital that mirrors the modern consensus as above. Someof these, in turn, deprecate the term "human resources" asuseless.In general the abstractions of macro-economics treat it thisway - as it characterizes no mechanisms to represent choiceor ingenuity. So one interpretation is that "firm-specifichuman capital" as defined in macro-economics is the modernand correct definition of "human resources" - and that this isinadequate to represent the contributions of "humanresources" in any modern theory of political economy.