Personnel management was concerned with obtaining, organizing and motivating the human resources (Armstrong 1977, cited by Armstrong 2000) while HRM was described as a ‘perspective on personnel management’ (Hendry &. Pettigrew, 1990, cited by Armstrong, 2000). According to Armstrong (2000), the HR directors and managers are doing much the same thing as the personnel directors and managers were doing 20 years ago. When HRM theory was introduced it was supposed to have strategic integration, high commitment, high quality, and flexibility but it only focused on challenging deficiencies in attitude, coherence, direction, and scope of the existing personnel management (Armstrong). The true professionals recognized that to succeed in the changing global scenario they would have to become more professional in their approach and they were encouraged to do so by recognized bodies. They were cognizant of new ideas and implemented new practices for which HRM has no role to play. According to Armstrong even though the name has changed there has not been any discontinuity or changes to the paradigm, which has been endorsed by Caldwell (2002) who expressed confusion about whether HR was a change in the name rather than a change in identity or practice.
Caldwell (2002) reveals that in 1990 a little over 6 percent of companies in the UK used the HR title which increases to about 9 percent in 1993 but surprisingly by 1998 it had gone up to 64 percent. The job title data of members of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development shows that 42 percent of the 43,700 members used the personnel title while 58 percent used the HR title which further confirms that HR title had overtaken the personnel title. .Different perspectives did emerge when HRM was introduced although it was highly criticized from different corners. It was considered amoral and anti-social by some while others found it full of internal contradictions and problems.