The traditional personnel management involves a set of functions, usually performed by the personnel department in companies, dealing with

such issues as selection and recruitment, training, compensation (pay and benefits), performance appraisal, promotion,motivation policies, pension and so forth. The personnel manager is usually a middle- or senior-rank manager who does not have a say in his or her companys strategic decisions. HRM is essentially an American invention. The concept of HRM is based on the notion that people management can be a key source of sustained competitive advantage and research evidence shows that effective HRM can lead to lower employee turnover and greater productivity and corporate financial performance HRM, as mentioned above, deals with personnel functions, but these are planned and implemented with regard to the overall strategies of the company and the ways in which human resources (HR) can contribute to those strategies. The person in charge of HR and its development correspondingly occupies a very senior position in the company, such as a director, sits on the board of directors and participates in strategic decision making. Porter (1985) distinguishes between a companys primary and support activities and places HRM among the latter which have a pivotal role in ensuring the effective and efficient operation of the former. human resource management is distinctive from personnel management in at least three ways. First, personnel focuses on the management and control of subordinates, HRM concentrates on the management team. Second, line managers play a key role in HRM in coordinating resources towards achieving profit, which is not the case under personnel management. Finally, the management of organizational culture is an important aspect of HRM, but plays no role in personnel management. HRM has generally been viewed from two different perspectives: hard and soft According to the hard model, reflecting utilitarian instrumentalism, HRM is used to drive the strategic objectives of the company; human resource, the object of formal manpower planning, is a resource, like other factors of production According to soft model , developmental humanist view of HRM. This model still emphasising the importance of integrating human resource policies with business objectives, sees this as involving treating employees as valued assets, a source of competitive advantage through their commitment, adaptability and high quality. Many companies employ both soft and hard models either at different times or for different groups of employees. For instance managers, core employees and skilled workers may be treated according to the soft model, and casual or unskilled workers according to the hard model. HRM Model

Matching Model (Fomburn et al., 1984) highlights the resource aspect of HRM and emphasizes the efficient utilisation of human resources to meet organisational objectives. It also emphasises a right fit between organisational strategy, organisational structure and HRM systems. Harvard Model (Beer et al., 1984) stresses the human, soft, aspect of HRM and is more concerned with the employeremployee relationship. It highlights the interests of different stakeholders in the organisation (such as shareholders, management, employee groups,government, community, unions) and how their interests are related to the objectives of management. Contextual Model (Hendry et al., 1988; Hendry and Pettigrew, 1992) is based on the premise that organisations may follow a number of different pathways in order to achieve the same results. This is so mainly because of the existence of a number of linkages between external environmental context (socio-economic, technological, politicallegal and competitive) and internal organisational context (culture, structure, leadership, task technology and business output). 5-P Model (Schuler, 1992) melds five human resource activities (philosophies, policies, programmes, practices and processes) with strategic needs. The model shows the interrelatedness of these activities and explains their significance in achieving the organisations needs. European Model (Brewster, 1993, 1995) is based on the argument that European organizations are constrained at both international (European Union) and national level by national culture and legislation. They are also constrained at the organisational level by patterns of ownership and at the HRM level by trade union involvement and consultative arrangements. These constraints need to be accommodated while forming a model of HRM. HRM, like so many other managerial functions, takes place not in a vacuum but within the overall internal organisational environment and the external national and international context in which the company operates. Examples of internal organizational factors are management philosophy and preferences, overall business strategies and policies,technologies and machinery employed and the skills required to operate them, employeesand managements attitudes to work and to one another, and organisational culture. Examples of major factors outside the organisation, both nationally and internationally, are government economic and trade policies, labour market conditions, trade unions and their power, rules and regulations concerning employee relations and health and safety at work, various bilateral and multilateral international conventions and obligations covering employee-related issues, and so forth. All these internal and external factors exert tremendous influences, sometimes contradictory, on a companys HRM strategies, policies and practices. In anthropological and sociological terms culture refers to values and attitudes that people belonging to a given society hold.

In every culture there is inequality of power between people, based on many factors such as wealth, education, political and social positions. At the macro-level,this inequality manifests itself in hierarchical stratification, for example class, caste and feudal systems. At the micro-level it can be seen in the extent to which individuals might be willing, or able, or reluctant or even scared to challenge the authority of people in senior positions, be it their parents, religious leaders, teachers or their rulers. In high-inequality cultures people are afraid of those in positions of power, or are too respectful of them to disagree with their views and actions, The management style is more likely to be paternalistic or autocratic, decisions tend to be taken by a few senior managers and carried out by subordinates, and organisations are highly centralised with a rigid hierarchical chain of commandinstructions flow from the top and obedience is expected from those in the lower levels. In low-inequality cultures, all these characteristics tend to be reversed: employees respect their managers but feel able to point out to them when they do not agree with their views or actions. The management style is therefore likely to be participative or consultative, authority hierarchy is flat and flexible or even replaced by networks and leaderless workteams. The procedures that are followed by companies in various nations, be it a domestic single nation firm or a multinational multicultural one, are different due to different societal and internal organisational factors. In advanced industrialised countries, such as the US, perhaps because of managers high level of professionalism, formal procedures such as assessment centres, interviews and written tests are employed to select the appropriate person. In many traditional and industrialising societies, such as some Middle East and African nations, recruitment especially to higher ranks is largely done through informal networks of relatives,friends and acquaintances. This is because of response to the limited scope and development of mass communications media and their use for advertising job vacancies. Moreover, many companies in some of these nations do not have highly specialised departments or functions regarding,for instance, selection and training of new recruits.