19.Lewin, David. Human Resources Management in the 21st Century

8/9/2019 19.Lewin, David. Human Resources Management in the 21st Century

1/12

Human Resources Management in the 21st Century

Human resource management consists of the attraction, selection, retention,

utilization, motivation, rewarding, and disciplining of employees in organizationsin

short, the management of people at work. During the last century or so, profound

shifts have occurred in the industrial mix of the economy, the nature and extent of

competition, and the types of work that employees perform. In particular, economic

activity has shifted from agriculture to manufacturing and from manufacturing to

services, with more and more employees performing relatively higher level analytical,

professional, and technical work, and fewer employees performing relatively low-

level, low-skill, and manual work. In the wake of these shifts, it has ecome common

for usinesses to claim that they !increasingly" compete ased on intellectual or

human capital rather than physical capital or #hard$ assets !%feffer, &''(".

)he phrase #human resource management,$ which supplanted the earlier #personnel

management,$ conveys a sense of these shifts in that employeespeopleare viewed

as resources whose active management can positively contriute to organizational

success. In this sense, human resources are akin to customers, financial resources,

operating systems, and technology, each of which constitutes a main input into

organizations, which then mix and transform these inputs for the purpose of

producing ma*or outputsgenerically, goods and services and cominations thereof.

)he +uantity and +uality of such goods and services are constrained y !operate

within the context of" an organizations strategic o*ectives. In companies, these

o*ectives typically include rate of return on invested capital, revenue growth, market

share and, if pulicly traded, share price. s with other inputs or assets, therefore,human resources must e managed strategically for the longer term and not *ust

operationally for the short term or on a day-to-day asis.

)his view of human resource management clearly indicates that those who lead and

manage usiness !and nonusiness" enterprises as well as component units and

departments must e skilled in the management of people. t the same time and as

organizations grow larger, they usually estalish a formal human resources function

!that is, a department" staffed y executives and professionals who specialize and

assist the organization in managing its employees. n #H department$ typically

develops, specifies, and monitors operating policies and practices regarding hiring,

*o placement, pay and fringe enefits, performance appraisal, promotion, trainingand development, work-life alance, and discipline and due process. However,

ecause of the large amount of human resource/employment legislation, an H

department typically also specifies and monitors operating policies and practices

regarding payroll deductions, workplace safety, e+ual employment opportunity,

employee leave plans, employee savings and enefit plans, and employee health care

and wellness plans !0ackson 1 2chuler, 3445".

6ontemporary human resource management occurs in a world that is much different

from that which existed only a relatively short time ago. leading development in

this regard is the change in employment contracting, specifically, from permanent or

continuous employment to employaility. During the (4-year period dating from the

end of 7orld 7ar II to aout the mid-&'84s, the ma*ority of employees worked


2/12

continuously for the companies that employed them, were covered y pension plans,

and received a stream of pension enefits once they retired from employment with

those companies. 9nder this arrangement, employees were paid less than the value of

their productivity early on and more than the value of their productivity later on, with

employers gaining an economic rent during the former period and employees gaining

an economic rent during the latter period. t virtually any point during this period ofcontinuous or permanent employment, therefore, one party had an oligation to the

other party. )hese oligations were generally not put in writing, however, which is

why this arrangement is referred to as implicit employment contracting !:ewin 1

;itchell, &''". )hese contracts, it should e noted, applied largely to

male employees who in a more traditional era were regarded as the readwinners

the sole readwinnersfor their families.

7ith the onset in aout &'84 and the suse+uent rapid spread of gloal economic

competition, deregulation, and technological change, the employment landscape

shifted markedly. 7hereas earlier on in an era of mutual and reciprocal oligations

employers responded to economic recessions y laying off employees and thenrehiring them when economic conditions improved, during the &'84s employers

egan systematically to reduce their workforces in order to achieve long-term,

permanent laor cost reductions. 2o pervasive was this trend that even companies

with the strongest reputations for continuous employment such as I?;, @odak, 5;,

%olaroid, and Aerox followed suit. 2uch actions sent a clear message to oth current

employees and new workforce entrants that continuous !and surely permanent"

employment with the same company was increasingly unlikely !Bsterman, &'88".

During the &''4s, especially the #go-go$ second half of that decade, which featured

ma*or economic expansion fueled y high-technology companies and the

commercialization of the Internet, laor markets were very tight, and therefore

competition for laorhuman resourceswas especially keen. 6onse+uently,

employee +uit rates rose markedly and fre+uent *o-changing !even *o-hopping"

ecame the order of the day. )his development reinforced the message of the &'84s,

namely, that continuous or permanent employment was the wave of the past rather

than the present and, even more likely, the future. Crom an analytical perspective,

employaility ecame the order of the day, employees were paid the value of their

productivity at any point in time, and implicit long-term employment contracting gave

way to shorter term, often explicit, commodity type #laor$ contracting, including

most notaly through outsourcing. )hese trends continued, even sharpened, into the

first decade of the 3&st century !ffron, Eandossy, 1 Eoldsmith, 3445".

nother key trend of direct relevance to human resource management that occurred

during the past +uarter-century indeed, during the past half-centuryis the decline

of private-sector unionization and collective argaining, not only in the 9nited 2tates

ut also in most other nations.

7hereas aout one third of the 9.2. nonagricultural private-sector laor force once

elonged to unions and worked under terms and conditions of employment that were

explicitly spelled out in collective argaining agreements that had een negotiated y

company executives and union officials, today only F.(G of private-sector employees

elong to unions and less than &4G are covered y collective argaining agreements

!Ereenhouse, 344F". )he same fundamental forces, namely, gloal economiccompetition, deregulation, and technological change, that led to greatly reduced use of


3/12

long-term implicit employment contracting also led to the decline of unionism and

collective argaining. ach of these forces served to increase oth product market and

laor market competition, which made it markedly more difficult for unions to

negotiate economic rents for their memers. 7hereas unions in general and certain

unions in particular were once ale to negotiate wage and enefit rates well aove

those prevailing in laor markets more roadly, they ecame increasingly unale to doso when argaining with companies in highly competitive industries rather than

companies in industries characterized y oligopoly or monopoly. )his, in turn, meant

that union memers and potential union memers were unlikely to otain a wage

premium that at least offset the cost of union dues. s a result, fewer and fewer

workers chose to elong to unions and more and more companies sought to avoid

unions y moving operations elsewhere, including offshore, and y sustituting

capital and technology for !relatively more expensive" laor. 6orrespondingly, the

incidence of company laor relations departments specializing in the negotiation and

administration of collective agreements declined, and the incidence of company

human resource departments specializing in the management and administration of

individually oriented employment relationships increased !?udd, 344


4/12

financial and nonfinancial participation in the enterprise #paid off$ in terms of

company financial performance.

During the ensuing decade and a half, an impressive array of articles and ooks

appeared that sustantially expanded the analysis and evidence aout the effects of

human resource management practices on organizational performance !7all 1 7ood,344


5/12

e regarded as containing or reducing laor costs, therey contriuting to overall

organizational performance.

7hen these two streams of research are comined, they lead to what can est e

termed a #dual theory$ of human resource management and organizational

performance. )his theory posits that some employees performing certain types ofwork are est managed y investing in high-involvement practices, while other

employees performing other types of work are est managed through low-

involvement practices. )he former set of employees can e thought of as core

employees, while the latter set of employees can e thought of as peripheral

employees. ?oth types of employees and oth sets of human resource management

practices can positively contriute to organizational performance. %erhaps the larger

+uestion in this regard is, #7hat is the appropriate or est alance of core and

peripheral employees for an organizationJ$

)hough the answer to this +uestion is likely to differ from industry to industry and

organization to organization, one overall estimate is that a comination of two-thirdscore employment and one-third peripheral employment is optimal in terms of

organizational financial performance. 2tated differently, an organization can add value

!to its financial performance" y increasing its ratio of peripheral to total employees

from, say, one sixth to one fifth or from one +uarter to one third, ut will likely lose

value !in terms of its financial performance" y increasing its ratio of peripheral to

total employees from, say, one third to two fifths or to one half !:ewin, 3443" in

other words, this relationship is curvilinear.

ven though research and practitioner attention has increasingly een devoted to

managing human resources for competitive advantageorganizational financial

performanceconsiderale attention has also een paid to employment dispute

resolution. In this regard, the decline of unionism and collective argaining should not

e taken to me that there has een a corresponding decline in employment-related

conflict in organizations. )o the contrary, and as indicated y oth the adoption y

nonunion organizations of what have come to e known as alternative dispute

resolution !D" systems and the sustantial amount of employment/human resource

management legislation that has een enacted y the federal government and state

governments during the past several decades, conflict is an enduring, ever-present

characteristic of employment relationships !6olvin, 344(". Hence, any informed

treatment of contemporary human resource management must consider the nature of

such conflict, the practices that have een undertaken in attempting to resolve suchconflict, and the effectiveness of such practices.

7hile it is well known that the ulk of employmentrelated disputes are resolved in

informal discussions etween #aggrieved$ employees and their immediate

supervisors/managers, often using open-door and hotline policies and practices, a

growing proportion of nonunion companiesperhaps more than


6/12

nonunion employment dispute resolution systems include 6hief xecutive Bfficer

!6B", 6hief dministrative Bfficer !6B", a 2enior ;anagement 6ommittee, peer

review, and, in aout 34G of the systems, inding third-party aritration !:ewin,

344F". In addition, these systems also vary consideraly in terms of speed of

grievance processing, scope of employment-related issues su*ect to grievances, and

employee eligiility to use grievance procedures. Kotaly, whereas in unionizedsettings only employees who are represented y a unionknown as the argaining

unitare eligile to file grievances, in nonunion settings the scope of employee

eligiility is typically wider and may even include first-line and mid-level managers.

)his apparently means that more, perhaps consideraly more, nonunion than

unionized employees who have employment-related conflicts can invoke their

respective organizations employment dispute resolution systems. ?ut this also means

that, unlike in unionized settings, the determination of grievance steps, speed of

grievance settlement, scope of grievance issues and scope of employee eligiility to

use the grievance procedure in nonunion settings is determined solely y the employer

!6olvin, @lass, 1 ;ahony, 344>". )hese features of nonunion D systems together

with the fact that nonunion employers pay the costs of aritration when this method isused has elicited considerale criticism from specialists in this areathe main

criticism eing that this type of system is one sided and hence unfair !7heeler, @lass,

1 ;ahony, 344(".

mpirical evidence shows that nonunion employees who are eligile to use

organizational grievance systems do in fact do so, though their grievance filing rates

are aout half as large as those of unionized employees. sustantial proportion of

nonunion employee grievances, etween 84G and '4G, are settled at early steps of

the grievance procedure, which is +uite similar to what occurs among unionized

employees. Bnly a small percentage, 3G to 5G on average, of oth nonunion and

unionized employee grievances are settled at the final step of the grievance procedure

irrespective of what that step may e !for example, peer review or aritration". mong

male employees, whether unionized or nonunion, the issues most fre+uently in dispute

and hence the su*ect of grievances are *o assignment, pay rate, and discipline,

including discharge from employment. mong female employees, y contrast and

again whether unionized or nonunion, the issues most fre+uently in dispute and hence

the su*ect of grievances are promotion, training and development, and

discrimination/harassment !:ewin, &'''".

n especially important stream of research in the area of nonunion grievance systems

focuses on what has een termed postdispute resolution outcomes. In particular, theseoutcomes include employee *o performance ratings, promotion rates, work

attendance rates, and turnover rates !:ewin 1 %eterson, &'''". )he dominant

analytical approach used in this research is +uasi-experimental, involving

comparisons of samples of nonunion employees who suse+uently do and do not file

grievances, respectively, under their organizations employment dispute resolution

systems the former are referred to as grievance filers and the latter as grievance

nonfilers. Cor these two employee groups, their *o performance ratings, promotion

rates, and work attendance rates are compared efore, during, and after a period of

grievance filing and settlement, and their turnover rates are compared after grievance

settlement. )he main findings from this research are that comparaly matched

samples of nonunion employees do not differ significantly in *o performance ratings,promotion rates, and work attendance rates prior to and during grievance filing and


7/12

settlement ut differ markedly thereafter, with the first two of these three measures

eing significantly lower !and the third eing insignificantly lower" for grievance

filers than for nonfilers. Curther, oth voluntary and involuntary employee turnover

rates in &-to-5-year periods following grievance settlement are significantly higher for

grievance filers than for nonfilers. ;oreover, a very similar pattern of findings has

een reported for samples of supervisors of grievance filers compared with samples ofsupervisors of nongrievance filers !@lass 1 DeKisi, &'8' :ewin, &''F Blson-

?uchanan, &''>, &''F".

7hen it comes to explaining these findings, two main alternatives have een

proposedL the retaliation explanation and the revealed performance explanation. )he

retaliation explanation is relatively straightforward in claiming that nonunion

employees who actually use their organizations dispute resolution systems suffer

retaliation for doing soand the same is true of their supervisors. )his explanation is

consistent with organizational punishment/industrial discipline theory and is also

supported y related survey research showing that employee fear of retaliation is

significantly negatively associated with nonunion employees use of grievanceprocedures !?oroff 1 :ewin, &''F Beilly 1 7eitz, &'84". )he revealed

performance explanation is relatively less straightforward in claiming that employee

grievance filing spurs or shocks company management into paying closer attention to

employee performance and performance evaluation once that occurs, management

learns !ex post facto" that grievance filers and their supervisors are relatively poorer

performers than nongrievance filers and their supervisors. )his explanation is

consistent with the shock theory of unionismthat is, unionization shocks

management into improving productivity and organizational performance more

roadlyand with the considerale evidence that company performance evaluation

systems yield evaluation results that are in general significantly upwardly iased

!:ewin, 344


8/12

employees. )herefore, and looking ahead, it may e asked, why cant this set of

#est$ human resource management practices e enhanced y adding to it proactive

employment dispute identification, diagnosis and resolution, including through early-

stage employee consultation in workplace and organizational decisions targeted

internal employee-as-customer research, including through electronic online surveys,

to learn and gauge the depth of employees workplace and organizational concernsand even new and deeper initiatives at work-family life alance to address employee

issues and concerns that manifest themselves as employment-related disputes ut that

have their origins in internal family disputes !@aminski, &'''"J ;erely posing this

multifaceted +uestion implies that human resource management in the 3&st century

will re+uire deeper thought, theory development, empirical research and clinical

insight than have prevailed heretoforeespecially if human resources are to e used

for competitive advantage y usiness and nonusiness enterprises.

If new initiatives at integrating internal organizational conflict management with

human resource management practices are not forthcoming or are not effective, then

external regulatory approaches and methods for resolving employment relationshipconflicts will continue apace and perhaps deepen. lthough unlike many other

developed countries the 9nited 2tates does not have a national employee rights law,

during the second half of the 34th century much legislation was enacted to regulate

one or another aspect of private sector employment relationships. )he leading !9.2."

federal statutes in this regard included the &'>5 +ual %ay ct, &'>F ge

Discrimination in mployment ct, &'>( 6ivil ights ct, &'F4 Bccupational 2afety

and Health ct, &'F5 ehailitation ct, &'F( mployee etirement Income 2ecurity

ct, &'F( )rade ct, &'88 7orker d*ustment and etraining Kotification ct, &''4

mericans with Disailities ct, and &''5 Camily and ;edical :eave ct. s

explicitly indicated y some of their titles, the ulk of these laws are aimed at curing

and providing remedies for employment discrimination ased on, as examples,

ethnicity, gender, national origin, age, and disaility. ?y most scholarly accounts, such

laws have een effective in comating overt employment discrimination, ut have

een less effective in promoting workforce diversity within usiness enterprises

!:ewin 1 ;itchell, &''


9/12

monetary payment in satisfaction of their discrimination claims and then move on to

seek employment elsewhere !:ewin, &'''".

?y contrast, some employment disputes do result in the reinstatement of employees to

their *os, notaly in cases in which state courts have determined that implicit

employment contracts exist. In such #wrongful termination$ cases, the courts giveconsiderale weight to such factors as an employees length of service with a

company/employer and the employees record of *o performance, promotions, and

pay increases. Eenerally speaking, a long-term employee who has rendered good-to-

excellent *o performance and who has received promotions and pay increases on a

more or less regular asis is most likely to e reinstated to his or her *o under the

*udicial doctrine of wrongful termination. In reaching such a decision, a court

asically concludes that the employer and employee in +uestion had an implicit

employment contract that assured continuous employment unless the employee

underperformed. In response to *udicial decisions favoring employees in several

prominent wrongful termination cases, many employers revised their human resource

policies, including those spelled out in employee handooks, to state that they are at-will employers, meaning that the employer and/or the employee are free to end the

employment relationship at any time. ?ut as suse+uent *udicial decisions made clear,

even an employers explicit employment-at-will policy does not necessarily prevent

the courts from reinstating terminated employees to their *os, especially when such

terminations constitute employer retaliation against employee whistlelowers !:ewin,

&''(".

ven though some long-service employees and some employees who have lown the

whistle on their employers fraudulent ehavior have een reinstated to their *os as a

result of state court decisions, more recent decisions of the 9.2. 2upreme 6ourt in

employment dispute cases, specifically in Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane!&''&"

and Circuit City v. Adams!344&", are especially significant and far reaching. In these

cases, the court ruled that the entire range of 9.2. employment laws, including )itle

II of the 6ivil ights ct, the ge Discrimination in mployment ct, and the

mericans with Disailities ct, is su*ect to aritration provisions contained in

employment contracts etween employers and employees. 2o strong is this deferral to

aritration doctrine that it apparently re+uires the #diversion of all employment

litigation M into an employerdesigned aritration procedure from which there is no

right of appeal or only very limited possiility of court review$ !6olvin, 3445".

Hence, it is not surprising that this type of internal aritration has een widely

adopted y employers, especially nonunion employers, or that it has ecome the mainalternative to litigation as an employment dispute resolution method !:ipsky, 2eeer,

1 Cincher, 3445". It is therefore also not surprising, as noted earlier, that internal

aritration type D is criticized for its one-sidedness and for its failure ade+uately

and neutrally to protect employee rights !7heeler, @lass, 1 ;ahony, 344(".

If the management of human resources involves a sustantial element of complying

with relatively new human resources and employment regulation, it also involves

complying with older, longer standing regulation. leading example in this regard is

the &'58 Cair :aor 2tandards ct !C:2", which contains provisions specifying

minimum wage, female and child laor protection, and overtime pay eligiility and

re+uirements. )he leading example of a new challenge to this #old$ law is the spate ofmanagerial misclassification cases that have een filed during the last decade or so. In


10/12

rief, these cases, which are predominantly class actions filed against retail trade

employers in the supermarket and restaurant industries, involve allegations that

employees holding such *o titles as store manager, department manager, and location

manager and who are paid annual salaries rather than hourly wages in fact perform

predominantly employee rather than managerial work and, therefore, should receive

or have received overtime pay for all hours worked eyond (4 in a week and, in6alifornia, eyond 8 in a day. s documented y :evine and :ewin !344>", the

volume of managerial misclassification cases has increased dramatically and the

potential monetary damages in some of these cases runs to the &4s and even &44s of

millions of dollars.

9nder the C:2 as well as state wage and hour laws, employees who do not +ualify

for overtime pay are referred to as #exempt$ and employees who do +ualify for

overtime pay are referred to as #nonexempt$ !meaning that they are included under

covered ythe overtime pay provisions of these laws". s originally written, the

C:2 identified certain types of exempt employees, as examples, executives,

professionals, and certain administrative employees. t the time the C:2 and manyof the state wage and hour laws were passed, the 9nited 2tates was still in the midst

of the Ereat Depression, unemployment was very high, and the ma*ority of employees

worked in manufacturing. )he 6ongress reasoned that if employers had to pay a ".

Crom a human resource management perspective, the key +uestion in this regard is

#7hy have managerial misclassification cases explodedJ$ )he multifaceted answer tothis +uestion is as follows. Cirst, and especially important to recognize, every usiness

enterprise starts out as a small enterprise with relatively little financial capital and

operates in one or a few locations with few customers and few employees. If the

usiness survives its start-up phaseand many do notit moves into a growth phase

in which it adds financial capital, customers and employees, achieves operating profit

and, most important, expands its locations. In the start-up phase, those who manage

the usinesss few locations and facilities !and who may e memers of a usiness

founders family" perform predominantly managerial work. )o illustrate, in a retail

usiness, managers decide when the store will open and close, the suppliers/vendors

from whom goods will e purchased, the prices at which goods will e sold to

customers, the type and extent of advertising and promotion, and the hiring,utilization, and disciplining of employees.


11/12

2econd, as this prototypical retail usiness grows larger and opens more stores in

widespread locations, the responsiility for deciding store operating hours, vendors,

prices, advertising, and employment moves from the individual store and store

manager to higher levels, for example, regions and divisions headed y regional

managers and divisional managers, respectively. In other words, store operating

policies and practices come to e determined and monitored on a more centralizedasis, and decisionmaking responsiility conse+uently moves away from the store

level to higher levels, including the head+uarters level. dding to this tendency are

initiatives aimed at optimizing supply chain management in which decisions aout

which vendors to use, the terms of contracts with chosen vendors, and the scheduling

of vendors deliveries to stores are made at higher organizational levels rather than at

the store level.

)hird and as the usiness grows still larger, standard operating policies !2B%s" are put

in place y top management to govern most if not all aspects of individual store

functioning. 2uch policies closely circumscrie the ehavior of store managers

regarding product displays, stocking and restocking of shelves, product pricing,special attractions and discounts, work shifts, employee *o assignment, inventory

control, customer service, and much more. )he asic concept underlying such

standardization, known as replication, is that a customer will have the same

experience irrespective of which store !or restaurant or other estalishment" he or she

enters or where the store is located. lso consistent with this policy of standardization

is the concept of national, even gloal, randing which means, for example, that a

customer of 7al-;art or ;cDonalds can expect the same type of products or food to

e availale and to receive the same level of service regardless of location.

Courth, in virtually all large retail usinesses, individual store and location managers

are compensated through a comination of ase salary and onus. 9nder this type of

compensation plan, the onus is typically ased on the difference etween a stores

udgeted laor costs and its actual laor costs the larger the excess of udgeted over

actual laor costs, the larger the store managers onus. 7ith this compensation plan

in place, salaried store managers have a clear incentive to sustitute their #laor$ for

the hourly paid laor of their employees. 2tated differently, additional hours worked

y salaried store managers cost the employer nothing whereas additional hours

worked y hourly paid employees cost the employer additional hourly wages and,

especially in high-demand periods, overtime pay. )herefore, a store manager who

seeks to maximize his or her onus will perform some and perhaps many

nonmanagerial employee tasks and, in effect, replace hourly employees when doingso !:evine 1 :ewin, 344>".

In sum, the recent explosion of managerial misclassification cases can e explained

y a comination of strategic, organizational, supply chain management, marketing,

and compensation initiatives on the part of companies, especially retail trade

companies, that, on the one hand, make good sense from a usiness performance

perspective ut, on the other hand, expose these companies to potentially large legal

damages ecause they have failed ade+uately to address the changes in lower level

management *os emanating from otherwise well-meaning and well-founded strategic

initiatives. 2uch legal exposure, in turn, raises +uestions aout the role of the human

resource management function in these retail usinesses. If human resourceexecutives of these enterprises have, so to speak, a seat at the usiness strategy tale,


12/12

then the potential conse+uences of the aforementioned strategic initiatives for changes

in lower level store manager *os and the overtime pay claims resulting there from

could have perhaps een anticipated and dealt with exante. ?ut if human resource

executives in these enterprises do not have a seat at the usiness strategy tale and

were largely relegated to operational roles, then they are left to pick up the pieces in

attempting expost to assist their enterprises in defending themselves against claims ofmanagerial misclassification.

Bnce again from a human resource management perspective, this development in an

increasingly important sectorthe retail sectorof the 9.2. economy calls into

+uestion the role and influence of the human resource function and leaders of this

function in the usiness enterprise. ;any scholars and practitioners claim that human

resourcesHis a strategic usiness function that should fundamentally e a

usiness partner in the same way that finance, marketing, and operations are usiness

partners in the enterprise !9lrich, :osey, 1 :ake, &''F". Net there are many other

roles and purposes that H functions and those who lead these functions serve in

modern usiness enterprises, including complying with human resource/laorregulation !newer and older regulation", enforcing organizational and employment

policies and practices, measuring employee performance, providing services and

assistance to employees, maintaining employee personnel files, monitoring workplace

safety, handling employee relocation, including aroad, and even maintaining a

union-free environment. 7ith this menu of potential duties and responsiilities, it is

understandale that many H functions in modern usiness enterprises are considered

to e largely operational functions rather than strategic functions. ?ut if the claim that

usiness enterprises increasingly compete on the asis of their intellectual or human

capital is at all valid, then the main challenge regarding human resource management

in the 3&st century is for H functions and H leaders to keep their eye on the prize

of a strategic role in these enterprises while also performing the necessary operational

rolerolesthat H functions and leaders must inevitaly undertake.

David :ewin

Curther eadings

Entry Citation:

:ewin, David. OHuman esources ;anagement in the 3&st 6entury.O 21st CenturyManagement: A Reerence !and"oo#. 344F. 2E %ulications. &> pr. 34&4.

PhttpL//www.sage-ereference.com/management/rticleQn

19.Lewin, David. Human Resources Management in the 21st Century

Documents

Transcript of 19.Lewin, David. Human Resources Management in the 21st Century