Extended Summary

There are some difficulties in considering the history of human resource
management (HRM). One of these difficulties is related to how HRM will be
defined. When HRM is defined very broadly, its history dates back to ancient
times, while when it is defined in the context of specialized organizational activities
and departmentalization, its history extends to relatively recent times,
approximately a century ago. Another issue is related to the context of the subject
(HRM). Differences will arise in how its history is written between considering it as
a narrow technical organizational activity and considering it as a broader strategic
activity. Additionally, the relationship with other labels used to describe relevant
practices presents another challenge. For example, what kind of relationship exists
between industrial relations or personnel management and HRM? Are they
synonymous? In this study, the intention is not to present the history of HRM
based solely on how it is defined; rather, it is to approach it from the idea that
these different definitions are also important in a process.
The idea that the history of HRM can be approached with a “process” concept will
be attempted by referring to Norbert Elias’s concepts. As is known, Norbert Elias
argues that societies should be examined through a long sequence of history, which
he calls the “civilizing process”, and that societies and individual behaviours can
only be understood in this way. Here, the concept of sequence should not
invalidate the concept of process, as when referring to a sequence, it implies a
section of an ongoing process without a beginning or endpoint. Elias roughly
examines a section between the 16th and 19th centuries in his own study, but of
course, this section is a segment of an endless process. Civilizing can roughly be
understood as an increase in self-control over behaviours, the suppression of crude
behaviours by the individual, refinement, and sophistication. In his examination
within the context of Western European history, Elias speaks of two key dynamics
of this process. One is the formation of modern nation-states, in other words, the
monopolization of power. The monopolization of power also implies a financial
monopolization or the formation of a tax monopoly. Another dynamic is the
increase in division of labour and consequently, the increase in mutual
relationships or dependencies. This reciprocity, called “figuration” in Elias’s
literature, means that the actors in the relationship exert more control over
behaviours, in other words, it signifies civilization. In his work “The Civilizing
Process”, Elias tries to show how many behaviours that were quite normal in early
periods are met with “disgust” in the 19th century or today, and therefore, these
behaviours are concealed from public view.
At this point, let’s touch on how Elias’s concepts can be used to reconsider the
history of labour relations or HRM. As is known, labour relations, until relatively
recent times, can be considered as a history of relationships that could be
characterized with coercion or barbarism by today’s standards. Both compulsory
forms of labour (slaves, soldiers, prisoners, etc.) and forms of labour or
employment practices carried out using “free labour” abound with examples of the
barbarisms or coercions mentioned above. In early periods, there were no laws,
institutions, or policies protecting workers, and practices that we now call barbaric
were considered normal or legal. With Elias’s call to look at long historical
sequences, it is possible to say that a similar scrutiny or civilization is seen in the
history of labour relations. Today’s labour relations, for example, are much more
“civilized” compared to those of the 19th century.
It is necessary to mention that a reinterpretation using Elias’s concepts could lead
to some misunderstandings. Elias never assigns value to civilization or the
civilizing process; he treats it as a fact. Therefore, talking about the civilization of
present-day labour relations does not mean ignoring the risks faced by workers in
the 21st century, nor does it mean that power operates from a single centre and in
a single direction. His concept of figuration prevents such an interpretation.
What this study aims to do is to show that using the concept sets offered by social
theory provides new possibilities for understanding labour relations or human
resource management. In this study, I point out the possibilities for researchers of
reinterpreting the history of HRM using Norbert Elias’s concepts. The study
consists of two main parts. In the first part, I outline Norbert Elias’s key concepts,
and in the second part, I indicate the possibility of an HRM history reading with
these concepts