Talk:Human resource management

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Human resource management article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Business Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

I am also using this article for a class project and I would like to see more about recent human resource xases and laws that may have gone into effect because of those case.--Sneugene (talk) 01:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] 

Hi, everyone! I will be working on this article over the next few weeks -- just a heads up. I'm planning on reducing the lead section a bit and doing some sentence-level work. Let me know if you have other ideas. Kschmick (talk) 01:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Strategic human resource planning article describes "human resource planning", "human resource management", "strategic human resource planning", and "strategic human resource management", using the terms interchangeably. Since there is considerable overlap between these articles, I propose that the Strategic human resource planning article be merged into Human resource management. — Newslinger talk 06:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi All,

Great discussion on the page. There was a red link opportunity for a Recruitment Strategies page on the Human resource management page. I have some experience in the field so I took a crack at it. Open to suggestions/ edits if you have time. Greente28 (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't merge this page with HR Management, this is a distinct conceptual framework

HR Planning - Often referred to as employment planning, the practice of forecasting # of employee needed and implementing a strategy of growth or retrenchment to satisfy the organisations needs. Thinking at the macro level and making change at the micro level to get the right number of staff. eg. Work out how many people you need working in your factory now, and how often you'll need to hire or promote someone as the company grows.

Building upon HR planning, you have Strategic HR Planning.

Strategic HR Planning - Practice of participating in organisational strategy setting to define the number of employees a company wants. eg. If unemployment levels are high, you hire manual labor staff in your factory stead of buying machinery, because they're more affordable.

... I'm sure that there's a strategic HRM professor out there who can clean this page up.

This page really should just be titled Human Resource Planning with a subtitle for Strategic HR Planning

121.211.160.160 (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC) odawg[reply]

I came here looking for manpower planning, with a particular interest in the statistical techniques involved, such as loglinear models. I found myself redirected to a page about HR in general, with nothing on the quantitative discipline at all.

Blaise (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge articles: Human resources into Human resource management; dated: December 2020. Proposer's Rationale: It seems like one of these articles is redundant, as they both talk about human resource management and managers. Discuss here. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 18:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naddruf, I'd argue that they are two separate, but similar topics. Human resources itself is the general field/concept, while HRM is a specific act of management within HR. ~RAM (talk) 13:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ram1055 Does that mean one can work in human resources without being a human resources manager?—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 17:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naddruf, If you are not familiar with the subject matter, you probably shouldn't be suggesting mergers..? I'd say so, they are really two separate things, see the above merger suggestion for HR Planning. ~RAM (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is that by reading the articles, I couldn't understand the difference between the topics. This is always a problem. I'd say if you are reading the article, you're probably not already an HR manager because you would probably already understand the topic.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 18:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• While I agree that Human resources is poorly written, I oppose the merge. That article really ought to explain not only how HR are managed, but what HR actually do in an organization. It's one thing to recruit manpower etc. and an entirely different question how manpower contributes to the activities of an organization. Also, Human resources has the larger scope, and it's a WP:VITAL article. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it might be best to move the first 3 section of Human resources to Human resource management, leaving the rest of the article to focus on the topic of Human resources. That is, move HR responsibilities, Activities and History to Human resource management as all of those sections focus on management rather than the primary topic of the page they're currently on. Klbrain (talk) 08:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, given the lack of consensus for any particular action, and active changes on these articles at a rate much faster than this discussion is proceeding. Klbrain (talk) 09:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]