CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

 1.1 Background of the Study

The survival of business organizations hinges on the availability of capital to keep the business running. However, central to the growth, viability and continued survival of any organization be it private or public, academic or social, manufacturing or nonmanufacturing; is the utilization of capital by the human element of the organization. The quality of human resources ensures effective combination of other resources – time, money (no matter how vast the financial resources), materials, technology (no matter how sophisticated the machines, tools and equipment), etc. in the most appropriate manner in order to achieve stated organizational objectives. Human resources or human capital is so critical to organizational survival such that it has, judging by today’s complex business environment, been acclaimed as the most important resource available to any organization going by the assertion of Nnadozie and Nwana (1993) that employees are the most valuable resources of any organization. This view is also echoed by Ewurum and Unamka (1995) who argue that the most important asset of an organization is its human resources, otherwise referred to as manpower.

The success or failure of the organization hinges on the calibre of its work force and the quality of the effort put in the service of the organization. The policies and programme an organization devises for its manpower resources are of crucial importance because people differ widely in the range and type of their abilities, in their character, attitudes, general behaviour, in their interests and motivation. To achieve maximum efficiency, therefore, individuals and jobs must be managed and matched. In an ideal business organization, human resources and management enjoy a symbiotic relationship which ensures none can survive or grow without the other. It is the human element in the organization that performs its management functions while management is also burdened with the responsibility of combining and coordinating the human, financial, material and other resources to achieve the goals of the organization. Griffin (1997) defines management as a set of activities (including planning and decision-making, organizing, leading and controlling) directed at an organization’s resources (human, financial, material and information) with the aim of achieving organizational goals in an effective and efficient manner. Therefore, human resources are very important and occupy a cardinal position in management. This implies that one is safe to say that human resource management is the pivot of all sorts of management in an organization.

An important development in human resources management is manpower planning. As a crucial matter, manpower planning has spread rapidly to every organization in almost every kind of business. There is no organization that can function very well even if it is well to do technologically, financially and otherwise without a welldesigned manpower planning process (Obi, 2003). To get a better understanding of what manpower planning is and how it has emerged, the evolution and development of manpower planning will be described. Since the origins of the modern industrial organization, human resource planning has been a management function (Walker, 1980). Division of labour, specialization, organization of management into levels, work simplification, and application of standards for selection employees and measuring their performance were all principles applied early in industrial management.

Planning for the staffing of work to be done has grown to become what it is today. The relatively sophisticated techniques available to management today are outcomes of a long period of evolution in practice, which started decades ago with simple, pragmatic, short term planning. The techniques used by management tended to fit contemporary conditions and events (Storey, 1995). During the first part of the 20th century, for example, the focus in manpower planning was upon the hourly production worker. The aim of improving efficiency through work engineering and early industrial psychology applications was consistent with the need to improve productivity and introduce greater objectivity to personnel practices (Ling, 1965;Merril, 1959; Yoder; 1952).

During the Second World War and the post war years, the focus intensified on employee productivity. There was also greater concern regarding the availability of competent managerial personnel, as there was a talent shortage in combination with significant demand for goods and services. New technologies and interests in behavioural aspects of work also added complexities to the manpower planning task.

In the 1960’s the demand for high talent personnel increased due to high technology programmes, rapid corporate expansion and diversification. In order to handle this increase, manpower planning practices were focused on balancing supply with demand, particularly demand for managerial, professional and technical personnel.

Human resource planning was viewed as a system linking the organization with its environment (Patten, 1969; Vetter, 1967). Walker (1980) argues that the most common view of manpower planning at the time, which also dominated the literature until the 80s, was that “companies forecast their needs for manpower into the future, forecast their internal labour supply for meeting these needs, and identify the gaps between what will be needed and what will be available.” Further, manpower planners develop plans for recruiting, selecting and placing new employees, provide for training and development and anticipate necessary promotions and transfers (Burack, 1972: Geisler, 1967; Henemann, 1968; Wikstrom, 1971).

The 70s came with new legislation, court decisions and governmental regulations. Management attention then turned to affirmative action planning and other aspect of compliance. While many companies adopted the techniques that had been introduced by leading companies during the previous decades, others experimented with new tools such as career planning, activity analysis, and reshaping of work (Walker, 1980). The majority of companies, however, were mainly concerned about the compliance with the significant new regulations governing discrimination, safety and pensions. Generally, it was an unsettled decade, during which managers had to deal with the energy crisis, uncertain costs and profits, the slowing of business expansion and the increased concern regarding women’s liberation and reverse discrimination (Bramham, 1994).

However, according to Bramham, it was during this time or decade that “manpower planning’’ was broadly being termed “human resources” planning and became widely established as astaff activity in major business and governmental organizations. The term “human resources planning” implied a scope broader than just supply-demand balancing or quantitative forecasting. Human resource planning shifted focus from being a quantitative approach, although recognizing its importance, to a more comprehensive view of the process encompassing both needs forecasting and program forecasting. During the 80s and early 90s, human resource management researchers and professionals tended to place greater emphasis on employee attitudes and on the development of personnel strategies to search for the enhancement of positive employee feeling and commitment (Zeffane and Mayo, 1994).