HRM Essay代寫范例-人力資源和人事管理。本文是一篇由本站代寫服務提供的HRM essay代寫參考，主要內容是講述人力資源管理的軟模式和硬模式在基本概念上存在著矛盾性差異；然而，提出將這兩種方法整合為一種人力資源管理理論。概述人事與人力資源管理之間的異同，可以使所討論的理論和哲學達到一個可理解的結局。下面就一起來看一下這篇留學生essay代寫范例。

Henry Ford’s assembly lines and Frederick Taylor’s time and method studies saw workers as another tool like machines. They sought to improve worker productivity by designing the way work is carried out. The problem with this approach is that humans are not machines, but individuals with personal goals and needs. Treating them like machines invariably leads to resistance and conflicts’.

亨利·福特的裝配線和弗雷德里克·泰勒的時間和方法研究將工人視為另一種工具，就像機器一樣。他們試圖通過設計工作方式來提高工人的生產力。這種方法的問題在于，人類不是機器，而是有個人目標和需求的個體。把他們當作機器一樣對待，必然會導致抵抗和沖突。

“Take our 20 best people away, and I will tell you that Microsoft would become an unimportant company”

“把我們最好的20個人帶走，我會告訴你，微軟將成為一家不重要的公司”

INTRODUCTION 引言

Human Resource Management (HRM) and/or Personnel Management (PM) has become a very vital part of the management process in the twenty-first century, compared to the past, it is drawing considerable attention in managerial debates and strategic planning of organizations. According to Storey (1995), ‘human resource management (HRM) has been and remains highly controversial’ (p.4), a position that Keenoy (1999) has approved it while defining the contemporary situation of Human Resource Management. The HRM has emerged its significance by relying on key terms such as leadership vs. management, training and development, empowerment, flat organizational structure, motivational systems, teamwork etc. For many, they are nothing but a nice expression, but in the dog-eat-dog market they seem to play a vital role, winning competitive advantage for industry players (Wright et al, 1992). Seemingly, the variety of different understandings of key differences between HRM and PM, if any at all, exists among professional managers. Some people believe it is the same old wine in a new bottle holding a fancy label; it is just a contemporary word.

人力資源管理（HRM）和/或人事管理（PM）已成為21世紀管理過程中非常重要的一部分，與過去相比，它在組織的管理辯論和戰略規劃中引起了相當大的關注。根據Storey（1995）的觀點，“人力資源管理（HRM）一直以來都極具爭議”（第4頁），Keenoy（1999）在定義人力資源管理的當代狀況時批準了這一立場。人力資源管理的重要性體現在領導力與管理、培訓與發展、賦權、扁平組織結構、激勵系統、團隊合作等關鍵術語上。對許多人來說，它們只是一種很好的表達方式，但在狗咬狗的市場中，它們似乎發揮著至關重要的作用，為行業參與者贏得競爭優勢（Wright等人，1992）。看起來，職業經理人對人力資源管理和項目管理之間的關鍵差異有各種不同的理解，如果有的話。有些人認為這是一瓶裝在新瓶子里的同樣的老酒，上面有一個花哨的標簽；這只是一個當代的詞。

Some experts state that there is no difference between HRM and personnel management. They declare that the two terms can be used interchangeably. They assert that the only evident change is merely condensed into the “re-labelling process” (Legge, 1989). Another advocator of the “change of label” philosophy was Torrington (1989), not to forget about the fact that there was and there is no valid statement defining to what extent PM and HRM differ. However, Sisson (1990) believed that the fancy name of HRM may at least release personnel management from its welfare hindering intension and thus far, assist the weak function of personnel management. In response to that, Armstrong (1987) and Guest (1989) ascertain that a new bottle for the old wine at least serves the marketing purposes appropriately. Furthermore, HRM has worthy contributions to people, recognizing them as core competencies of an organization buying attention and trust for traditional personnel management. (Armstrong 1987).there is no doubt that the story of HRM stems from the traditional PM, however it is yet to be proven whether it is a profound concept or just a ornamental label decorating the rusty structure of PM.

一些專家指出，人力資源管理和人事管理之間沒有區別。他們聲明這兩個術語可以互換使用。他們斷言，唯一明顯的變化只是濃縮到“重新貼標簽的過程”中（Legge，1989）。“標簽變化”哲學的另一個倡導者是Torrington（1989），不要忘記一個事實，即過去和現在都沒有有效的聲明來定義PM和HRM的不同程度。然而，Sisson（1990）認為，人力資源管理的花哨名稱至少可以將人事管理從其阻礙福利的內涵中釋放出來，從而有助于人事管理功能的弱化。對此，Armstrong（1987）和Guest（1989）確定，一瓶新的老酒至少可以適當地用于營銷目的。此外，人力資源管理對員工做出了有價值的貢獻，承認他們是組織的核心能力，為傳統人事管理贏得了關注和信任。（Armstrong 1987）。毫無疑問，人力資源管理的故事源于傳統的PM，但它是一個深刻的概念，還是僅僅是裝飾PM銹跡斑斑的結構的裝飾性標簽，還有待證明。

In this essay, to address the question: “To what extent, if at all, is HRM a “new” or different from personnel management or other forms of managing the employment relationship?”, the transformational development of HRM will be explained in order to identify and compare various models of HRM from inception, and to discuss the extent of differentiation, regarding the theoretical and practical perspectives, similarities and differences between PM and HRM are outlined, but previous to drawing them, soft and the hard models of HRM will be prefaced. Ultimately, a brief conclusion would summarize the discussion clarifying whether or not HRM is the story of old wine in new bottles.

在本文中，為了解決以下問題：“如果有的話，人力資源管理在多大程度上是一種“新的”或不同于人事管理或其他形式的雇傭關系管理？”，將解釋人力資源管理的轉型發展，以便從一開始就識別和比較各種人力資源管理模式，并討論差異的程度，從理論和實踐角度，概述了PM和人力資源管理之間的異同，但在繪制它們之前，首先介紹了人力資源管理的軟模型和硬模型。最后，一個簡短的結論將總結討論，澄清人力資源管理是否是新瓶裝舊酒的故事。

FROM INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS TO HRM 從勞資關系到人力資源管理

With the purpose of explaining and comprehending the term Human Resource Management and how possibly it differs from PM, it is important to trace its origins back in history. The roots of managing people can be found in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century, during the Industrial Revolution (Bratton & Gold, 2007), when improvement of working conditions was a common mood of the society, early attempts to welfare policies commenced by labor unions, and it has been known as the movement toward industrial betterments. Torrington et al. (1991) say that the primary responsibilities of the pioneer labor welfare societies were mostly regarding ‘distributing bonuses to the worthy and helpless workers’ (Torrington et al., 1993:3). The same concept of industrial relations was about to take a modern shape. ‘The term industrial relations generally depict the schematic connection of managers and worker associations and related institutional agreements’ (Tyson 2006).

為了解釋和理解人力資源管理一詞，以及它與PM的區別，追溯其歷史淵源是很重要的。管理人員的根源可以在18世紀末和19世紀初的工業革命期間找到（Bratton&Gold，2007），當時改善工作條件是社會的普遍情緒，工會開始的福利政策的早期嘗試，它被稱為工業改良運動。Torrington等人（1991）表示，先鋒勞工福利協會的主要職責主要是“向有價值和無助的工人分配獎金”（Torringtton等人，1993:3）。同樣的勞資關系概念也即將形成現代形態勞資關系一詞通常描述了管理者和工人協會以及相關制度協議之間的示意性聯系（Tyson 2006）。

‘World War II was the kick start of extended PM professions in war factories mostly in terms of personnel viewpoints, and for trembling organizations that were struggling in the red ocean of intense competition; it appeared in terms of unionizations. It was providing assistance to organizations in negotiations and other institutional consultations as such’ (Bratton & Gold 1999 2003)

“第二次世界大戰是戰爭工廠擴展PM職業的開端，主要是從人員角度，以及在激烈競爭的紅海中掙扎的顫抖的組織；它出現在工會方面。它在談判和其他機構協商中向各組織提供援助”（Bratton&Gold，1999年，2003年）

After World War II, personnel management emerged in efficiency of the entire company, the focal point of it, from dealing with workers has been redirected to employers’ (Tyson and York 2000). . To define PM, it refers to managing human resource with organizations, which includes recruitment and selection, training and employee development, appraisal and reward, discipline and dismissal (Heery & Noon, 2001) .Keenoy (1990) observed PM in a state of blurriness since it was striving for allocating a state of stability and equilibrium between organisational demands and employee demands. Therefore, the strategic HRM was turning toward running away from this vagueness, by stating that proliferation of employee satisfaction and loyalty would highly serve organizational goals.

第二次世界大戰后，人事管理在整個公司的效率中出現，其焦點從與工人打交道轉向了雇主（Tyson和York，2000年）。定義PM是指與組織一起管理人力資源，包括招聘和選拔、培訓和員工發展、評估和獎勵、紀律和解雇（Heery&Noon，2001）。Keenoy（1990）觀察到PM處于模糊狀態，因為它正在努力在組織需求和員工需求之間分配穩定和平衡的狀態。因此，戰略性人力資源管理正轉向擺脫這種模糊性，指出員工滿意度和忠誠度的激增將高度服務于組織目標。

In the late 1980s the term Human resource management emerged in Britain. As Torrington et al. (1991) says there is a “change of emphasis and attitude” into it. In better words, According to Mackay and Torrington (1986), HRM is “directed mainly towards management needs for human resources (not only employees) to be provided and deployed. It stresses on monitoring and control along with proper planning rather than on problem-solving and mediation. It is totally identified with management interests and is relatively distant from the workforce as a whole.”

20世紀80年代末，英國出現了“人力資源管理”一詞。正如Torrington等人（1991）所說，這是一種“重點和態度的改變”。換句話說，根據Mackay和Torrington（1986），人力資源管理“主要針對提供和部署人力資源（不僅僅是員工）的管理需求。它強調監督和控制以及適當的規劃，而不是解決問題和調解。它與管理層的利益完全一致，與整個勞動力相對較遠。”

PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT vs. HRM 人事管理與人力資源管理

Subsequent to sketching a brief background of managing people in organizations and the process of emerging various models and definitions, the controversial topic of PM vs. HRM has become the focal point of discussions among HR academics.A number of them, Legge(1989) for instance, advocate the view of “not many” differences between the two approaches, though the divergence of various aspects under this topic is inevitable.

在簡要介紹了組織中管理人員的背景以及各種模型和定義的出現過程之后，PM與HRM這一有爭議的話題已成為人力資源學者討論的焦點。其中一些人，例如Legge（1989），主張兩種方法之間“沒有太多”差異的觀點，盡管在這個主題下各個方面的分歧是不可避免的。

Torrington (1989) regards personnel management as a consistent procedure of upfolding and development, through which more expertise are requested. ‘In the frame of this developmental procedure, HRM is rasping another facet for the traditional PM’ (Torrington, 1989, cited by Armstrong, 2000), and is not at all a disruptive or radical concept.

Torrington（1989）將人事管理視為一個不斷提升和發展的過程，通過這個過程需要更多的專業知識在這一發展過程的框架內，人力資源管理正在為傳統的PM’（Torrington，1989，Armstrong引用，2000）打磨另一個方面，它根本不是一個顛覆性或激進的概念。

From another point of view, HRM is referred to as a ‘thoroughly different approach to people management in the workplace’ (Storey 1989: 4). According to this viewpoint, ‘HRM presents an entirely different framework of PM, thus it is considered to be a divergence from traditional personnel management’ (Storey 1989)

從另一個角度來看，人力資源管理被稱為“工作場所人事管理的一種完全不同的方法”（Storey 1989:4）。根據這一觀點，“人力資源管理提出了一個完全不同的PM框架，因此它被認為是與傳統人事管理的分歧”（Storey 1989）

An outstanding aspect of HRM, which is its strategic integration, draws a line of distinction between HRM and PM (Beardwell and Holden, 2001). ‘The vertical integration is aimed to achieve a close relationship between business strategy and people management strategy at the same time horizontal integration is aimed to ensure that personnel and development activities are mutually reinforcing, in other words, the pursuit of a business focus to people management which creates and sustains competitive advantage’ (Pilbeam and Corbridge, 2002).

人力資源管理的一個突出方面，即其戰略整合，在人力資源管理和PM之間劃清了界限（Beardwell和Holden，2001）縱向一體化旨在實現業務戰略和人員管理戰略之間的密切關系，同時橫向一體化旨在確保人員和發展活動相輔相成，換言之，追求將業務重點放在人員管理上，從而創造和維持競爭優勢”（Pilbeam和Corbridge，2002）。

Traditional personnel management view workers as robots, but HRM sees employees as human beings, as crucial business assets. By predicting aptitude gaps and needs, planning for motivational and promotional structures, and get a productive team by teaming up the employees, HRM strives for merging workforce and organizational objectives.

傳統的人事管理將員工視為機器人，但人力資源管理將員工視作人，視為重要的商業資產。通過預測能力差距和需求，規劃激勵和晉升結構，并通過與員工合作建立一個富有成效的團隊，人力資源管理努力將員工和組織目標相結合。

As the concept of HRM annex value and integration to the concept of PM, it is not of a same kind but is composed of various philosophies and theories, for the sake of a better understanding, the two main spectrum of HRM, ‘soft’ and ‘hard’, will be further elaborated.

由于人力資源管理的概念是對PM概念的附加價值和整合，它不是一個同類，而是由各種哲學和理論組成的，為了更好地理解，將進一步闡述人力資源管理“軟”和“硬”兩個主要光譜。

‘SOFT’ AND ‘HARD’ MODELS OF HRM 人力資源管理的軟模型和硬模型

‘On one side of the coin, there is the claim of the strong marching on of HRM’ (Storey 1995; Walton 1985) as well as the attractive idea of soft Human Resource Management (for example, people is the source of change; your labor is your asset; workforce are the source of sustainable competitive advantage or edge.) (Sisson & Storey 2000) ‘The other side of spectrum is the concept of Hard model, the slow diffusion of ‘soft’ HRM practices’ as Legge 2005 and Storey & Sisson (1990, 2000) suggested, ‘and the greater stress would be on the focus point of fundamental value of the business’ (Keenoy 1990; Legge 1995), ‘and likewise the improper execution of strategic HRM’ (Keenoy 1999).

“硬幣的一面是人力資源管理的有力推進”（Storey 1995；Walton 1985），以及軟人力資源管理（例如，人是變革的源泉；你的勞動力是你的資產；勞動力是可持續競爭優勢或優勢的來源）的誘人理念（Sisson&Storey 2000）“光譜的另一面是硬模式的概念，如Legge 2005和Storey&Sisson（19902000）所建議的“軟”人力資源管理實踐的緩慢擴散”，“更大的壓力將集中在業務的基本價值的焦點上”（Keenoy 1990；Legge 1995），“以及戰略人力資源管理的不當執行”（Keenoy 1999）。

Truss (1999) states that ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ models of HRM are “diametrically opposed along a number of dimensions.” At the same time other authors, like Armstrong (2000), claims that there no clear cut difference between the two approaches. This seems to be true for at least some theoretical dimensions such as strategic integration. In ‘hard’ HRM models people are regarded as human capital in which the organisation invests, and from which the organisation expects return on its investment to achieve competitive advantage. Employees are seen as a resource to be utilized and, perhaps, as a cost to be minimised. ‘Hard’ models are strongly focused on the strategic integration of HRM with business goals (Legge 1995). Therefore, people are strictly directed and controlled through quantitative performance management and HR databases. Whereas ‘soft’ models emphasise the strategic and quantifying management aspect of HRM, ‘soft’ models stress the human resource aspect (Legge 1989: 26, Guest 1989), to recap, Truss (1999) states, in ‘hard’ models the term ‘resource’ is underlined, while in ‘soft’ models it is the term ‘human’.

特拉斯（1999）指出，人力資源管理的“軟”和“硬”模型“在許多維度上是完全對立的”與此同時，其他作者，如Armstrong（2000），聲稱這兩種方法之間沒有明顯的區別。這似乎至少在一些理論層面上是正確的，比如戰略一體化。在“硬”人力資源管理模式中，人被視為組織投資的人力資本，組織期望從中獲得投資回報以獲得競爭優勢。員工被視為一種需要利用的資源，也許也是一種需要最小化的成本。”“硬”模式主要側重于人力資源管理與業務目標的戰略整合（Legge 1995）。因此，通過量化績效管理和人力資源數據庫，對人員進行嚴格的指導和控制。“軟”模型強調人力資源管理的戰略和量化管理方面，而“軟”模式強調人力資源方面（Legge 1989:26，Guest 1989），回顧一下，特拉斯（1999）指出，在“硬”模型中強調“資源”一詞，而在“軟”模塊中強調“人”一詞。

In ‘soft’ HRM employees are “valued assets” and a “source of competitive advantage.” (Legge 1995) They are regarded as capable and worthy of development, and experience considerable job autonomy and a high level of trust from management (Truss 1999).

在“軟”人力資源管理中，員工是“有價值的資產”和“競爭優勢的來源”（Legge 1995）他們被認為有能力和值得發展，并經歷了相當大的工作自主權和管理層的高度信任（特拉斯1999）。

Organisational culture and its promotion by management is highlighted. Direct and individual communication, employee involvement, motivation, and identification with missions and goals are regarded as crucial for organisational success. The commitment of employees is strongly desired as a precondition for increased effort and performance. At the same time, commitment is expected to facilitate self-regulated behaviour and, thus replace direct forms of supervision, pressure and control as they are typical for ‘hard’ HRM models and conventional personnel management (Truss 1999; Guest 1991).

強調了組織文化及其管理層的推動作用。直接和個人的溝通、員工的參與、動機以及對使命和目標的認同被認為是組織成功的關鍵。員工的承諾是提高努力和業績的先決條件。同時，承諾有望促進自我監管行為，從而取代直接形式的監督、壓力和控制，因為它們是“硬”人力資源管理模式和傳統人事管理的典型形式（特拉斯1999年；來賓1991年）。

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 調查結果和討論

Soft and hard model of HRM are contradictorily different in terms of basic concepts; however Guest (1989) proposed the integration of the two approaches into one theory of HRM. Outlining the similarities and differences between personnel and HRM may draw the discussed theories and philosophies into a comprehensible close.

人力資源管理的軟模式和硬模式在基本概念上存在著矛盾性差異；然而，Guest（1989）提出將這兩種方法整合為一種人力資源管理理論。概述人事與人力資源管理之間的異同，可以使所討論的理論和哲學達到一個可理解的結局。

5.1. Similarities 相似之處

Analysing and comparing definitions of both personnel and HR management, Legge (1989) finds that “there are clear similarities between the two.” In both models the strategies for managing personnel are derived from the business strategy and integrated with organisational goals. Especially Guest (1989) believes that the strategic orientation of ‘hard’ HRM models reconfirms the concept of personnel management, therefore, according to Guest (1989) there is no, or marginal differences between HRM and PM.

Legge（1989）對人事和人力資源管理的定義進行了分析和比較，發現“兩者之間有明顯的相似之處。”在這兩種模式中，管理人員的戰略都源于業務戰略，并與組織目標相結合。特別是Guest（1989）認為，“硬”人力資源管理模式的戰略取向再次確認了人事管理的概念，因此，根據Guest（89）的觀點，人力資源管理和PM之間沒有差異，或存在邊際差異。

To name one similarity, Armstrong (2001) sees similar approaches in HRM and PM regarding Recruitment and Selection activities, Compensation programs and performance management.

舉一個相似之處，Armstrong（2001）在人力資源管理和項目管理中看到了類似的招聘和選拔活動、薪酬計劃和績效管理方法。

A further similarity between personnel and HR management found by Legge (1989) is that in both concepts the management and development of personnel acquire professional expertise and lies under the responsibility of management team. Despite of tremendous similarities, still many points of difference exists in the eyes of other HR professionals.

Legge（1989）發現，人事和人力資源管理之間的另一個相似之處在于，在這兩個概念中，人員的管理和發展都獲得了專業知識，并由管理團隊負責。盡管有著巨大的相似之處，但在其他人力資源專業人士眼中，仍然存在許多不同之處。

5.2. Differences 差異

The outstanding strategic character of HRM is claimed to be one of the differences in emphasis between personnel and HR management. The formulation of HRM policies should explicitly take place at a strategic level within the organisation (Storey 1989). In better words, HRM needs to be implemented by senior managers, due to its heavy strategic nature, while conventional personnel management has always been known as a source of extra cost for many companies rather than being a source of competitive advantage. Based on Torrington (1989), this is aligned with strategic and “demand -driven” approach of hard HRM, which -again- focuses on organisational needs and bottom line.

人力資源管理突出的戰略特征被認為是人事與人力資源管理在側重點上的差異之一。人力資源管理政策的制定應明確在組織內部的戰略層面進行（Storey 1989）。換言之，由于人力資源管理具有重大的戰略性質，它需要由高級管理人員實施，而傳統的人事管理一直被認為是許多公司額外成本的來源，而不是競爭優勢的來源。基于Torrington（1989），這與硬人力資源管理的戰略和“需求驅動”方法相一致，后者再次關注組織需求和底線。

A crucial requirement of soft HRM approach is the creation of organisational culture and values. The culture should be designed for gaining the employees’ commitment. Commitment is a prominent goal of HRM, as it is seen as a crucial precondition for high performance (Guest 1989). Besides high trust and commitment, another part of organisational culture as promoted by HRM is a more direct form of communication. HRM advocates a turn from collectivism to individualism (Sisson 1990). It neglects collective bargaining and unions, and promotes individual relations with direct forms of communication between management and employees (Storey 1989; Keenoy 1990). Storey and Sisson, along with Guest (1989) discuss that “employee relations” are persistently taking over “industrial relations”.

軟性人力資源管理方法的一個關鍵要求是創造組織文化和價值觀。文化的設計應能獲得員工的承諾。承諾是人力資源管理的一個突出目標，因為它被視為高績效的關鍵先決條件（Guest 1989）。除了高度的信任和承諾，人力資源管理促進的組織文化的另一部分是更直接的溝通形式。人力資源管理倡導從集體主義轉向個人主義（Sisson 1990）。它忽視了集體談判和工會，并通過管理層和員工之間的直接溝通形式促進了個人關系（Storey 1989；Keenoy 1990）。Storey和Sisson以及Guest（1989）討論了“員工關系”正在持續取代“勞資關系”。

While personnel management often finds itself in an intermediate position between organisational demands and individual needs, soft HRM models maintain a coinciding relationship of organisational and individual interests. HRM policies and practices that are desirable for the employee are also beneficial to the achievement of organisational goals. Consequently, training and other means of development gain more importance and managerial attention than in personnel management (Torrington 1989). At the same time, soft HRM models grant more autonomy and self-responsibility to individuals (Torrington 1989), because a higher degree of autonomy is regarded as prerequisite for the organisation’s adaptability to change, i.e., the organisation’s flexibility (Guest 1989).Over all, the table below summarize the comparisons between the HRM and PM in various dimensions. [Appendix A]

雖然人事管理往往處于組織需求和個人需求之間的中間位置，但軟人力資源管理模式保持著組織和個人利益的一致關系。員工所期望的人力資源管理政策和實踐也有利于實現組織目標。因此，與人事管理相比，培訓和其他發展手段獲得了更多的重視和管理關注（Torrington 1989）。與此同時，軟人力資源管理模式賦予個人更多的自主權和自我責任（Torrington 1989），因為更高程度的自主權被視為組織適應變化的先決條件，即組織的靈活性（Guest 1989）。總之，下表總結了人力資源管理和項目管理在各個方面的比較。【附錄A】

HRM IN PRACTICE 人力資源管理實踐

Sisson (2001) and Hoque and Noon (2001) studied the practical implementation of HRM. Sisson as well as Hoque and Noon discovered that HR managers are more involved with strategic management procedures and the formulation of strategic business plans than personnel managers. In addition to that, evidence suggests that wider devolution of authority has occurred in workplaces with an HR specialist, as opposed to a personnel specialist. (Hoque and Noon 2001). All in all, Sisson’s conclusion is clear: although there are some rays of hope like the development of strategic competence, the impact of HRM on the personnel function has only been partial (2001). Hoque and Noon (2001) are a little more optimistic and stress the difference that HRM makes. They propose not to “use the HR and personnel labels as synonyms (or interchangeable terms-as mentioned in the introduction) because empirically they represent specialists who are operating in distinct ways”.

Sisson（2001）和Hoque and Noon（2001）研究了人力資源管理的實際實施。Sisson、Hoque和Noon發現，人力資源經理比人事經理更參與戰略管理程序和戰略商業計劃的制定。除此之外，有證據表明，與人事專家相比，人力資源專家在工作場所進行了更廣泛的權力下放。（Hoque和Noon，2001年）。總之，Sisson的結論是明確的：盡管有一些希望的曙光，比如戰略能力的發展，但人力資源管理對人事職能的影響只是部分的（2001）。Hoque和Noon（2001）更為樂觀，并強調了人力資源管理所帶來的差異。他們建議不要“將人力資源和人事標簽用作同義詞（或引言中提到的可互換術語），因為從經驗上講，它們代表了以不同方式運作的專家”。

7. PAUSE FOR THOUGHT 停下來思考

Whichever perspectives, HRM or PM, do managers deal with more beneficially? Mostly the differences are not clear: labels and terms, do not give us any hints. It has become evident that in many companies, both concepts of HRM and PM are followed concurrently.

無論從哪個角度，人力資源管理還是項目管理，管理者都能從中受益？大多數情況下，差異并不清楚：標簽和術語不會給我們任何提示。很明顯，在許多公司中，人力資源管理和PM這兩個概念是同時遵循的。

8. CONCLUSION 結論

HRM encompass two different models, soft and hard. The hard approach stresses and treats people as resources and core competencies of a company while in soft approach, the humanistic side of HR is highlighted and the role of training and development, commitment and communication, culture and etc. comes to play. In theory, HRM shares many similarities with PM, interestingly enough, in practice; it is still not easy to point the differences, thus, it can be stated that it is a subjective topic and there is no clear cut answer to the question of ” to what extent, HRM differs from PM?”

人力資源管理包括兩種不同的模式，軟模式和硬模式。硬方法強調并將人視為公司的資源和核心能力，而軟方法則強調人力資源的人文一面，并發揮培訓與發展、承諾與溝通、文化等作用。在理論上，人力資源管理與PM有很多相似之處，有趣的是，在實踐中；指出差異仍然不容易，因此，可以說這是一個主觀的話題，對于“人力資源管理在多大程度上與PM不同？”這個問題沒有明確的答案

The adaptation of HRM or PM differs from one company to another, depending on the managers understanding and organizational needs. The case in point is that the strategies must be adopted upon own organizational aims, thus as time marches on, it varies from company to company, and the patterns should differ. Defining the roles would be relatively different, addressing the requirements. Industrial Relation Management is still the best option for some; subsequently there would be no clear-cut line between HRM and PM in such companies. In spite of that, there are companies being active in the fields of labor advancements, cultural developments, motivational factors, etc., hence, rather than the traditional PM, they can claim for being HRM based.

人力資源管理或項目管理的適應因公司而異，這取決于管理者的理解和組織需求。恰當的例子是，戰略必須根據自己的組織目標來采用，因此隨著時間的推移，不同公司的戰略也不同，模式也應該不同。定義角色將相對不同，以滿足需求。對一些人來說，勞資關系管理仍然是最好的選擇；隨后，在這類公司中，人力資源管理和PM之間將沒有明確的界限。盡管如此，仍有一些公司活躍在勞動力進步、文化發展、激勵因素等領域，因此，與傳統的PM不同，他們可以聲稱自己是基于人力資源管理的。

Managing people is always dynamic, demanding consistent change in managing styles, theories and practices, and will continue in future to demand the changing management style, philosophy, actions and answers, that best address the solutions for ever challenging career of organizations.

管理人員始終是動態的，要求不斷改變管理風格、理論和實踐，并將在未來繼續要求不斷變化的管理風格、哲學、行動和答案，以最好地解決組織不斷挑戰的職業生涯的解決方案。

One thing is sure; this function is certainly no old wine in a new bottle – whether one calls it Personnel, or Human Resource Management!

有一點是肯定的；這個功能當然不是新瓶裝舊酒——無論人們稱之為人事還是人力資源管理！

本站提供各國各專業留學生essay格式范文，essay代寫以及essay寫作指導，如有需要可咨詢本平臺。