This section provides general idea of the key theories and themes of the current thesis: the evolution of human resource management (HRM), the emergence of strategic HRM practices, the major strategic HRM approaches (contingency, universalistic, configurational and contextual), and practices. The resource based view and behavioral prospective, strategic HRM practices and sustainable competitive advantage, the university environment, the university education in TRNC and finally, strategic HRM practices university environment.2.2. The Evolution of HRMThe discipline of Human Resource Management previously recognized as personnel management has a lengthy history in terms of both research and practice. HRM function possibly was the first management function to evolved, as time goes, others additional functions such as accounting, finance, and marketing followed. Though undocumented, the real management of human resources probably has occurred ever since the first organization of human being into performance groups. As society shaped evolved from hunting and then farming, a division of labor definitely arise with acknowledgment of contradictory production of individuals employee. This development was a form of division of labor in which different individuals play different roles in the production process of the society. Individual with Crafts or creativities skill will design farm implement for farmers and the craftsman will be supported in farm cultivation process, such division of labor emerges. through the history of human being, there has been a need to manage people when group of people come together to achieve a familiar goals or for the purpose of basic mean of living or conducting armed forces campaigns or engaging in vacation aim, the organization of collective human effort has been a regular activities (Thite, 2004).HRM is as old as human creation, the fundamental theory of HRM were gradually adopted into human culture as a way of life. The characteristics of HRM can be explains by investigating how an ancient family society disseminate works within their society to earn a living and good life in the ancient time, each of the family group or member of the community required a head or supervisor, individual with hunting skills, and notions of knowledge,(Leopold and Harris 2009). Some HRM scholars believe that there are various perspectives when unfolding the origin of HRM from the history to the present days. For the purpose of this research, we are concern with the evolution of HRM. In other words, the fundamental doctrine of HRM is sensitive and was simply adopted into human society a long time ago. According to Taylor, (1911) the first case of human resources management department was recorded in USA in 1901. The National Cash Register Co. engages in battle with the USA trade union, and finally won the battle, but the leader of the corporation figure out that structure have to be put in place to avoid such situation or battle in the future. They consequently prearranged a personnel department with the responsibilities of continues improving worker management by accurately management employee grievances, discharges, safety and other employee issues. The major reasons for establishment of personnel or human resources department as it was being call by some organization was the risk of unionization, the role of HRM department in most organization as at that time was more as a record-keeping department than as part of a tactic to prevent unionization. Throughout these times, the existing management theory was Scientific Management.HRM scholars identify different era of HRM development and represent each of the era with a unique HRM polices. Basics HRM; that deal with basic HR function of hiring, payment and firing of employee. The second stage is the functional growth stage; that have more loaded package of staffing, reward and benefits, confirmatory action, employment relations, training and development, but lack employee involvement. The third stage is the Controlled growth stage which involved evaluating different HR programs and policies, and select the HR polices that is more relevant to the firm and educate the organization management about the HR program. The functional integration stage has to do with the formulation of deliberate HR policies as a solution to organization problem. The functional integration is more dynamic and proactive in nature and finally the cross Functional Integration stage have do with the process of integrating HR polices into key department of the organization as a measure to create competitiveness and the effectiveness of HR practices (Baird and Meshoulam1984).High number of academic scholars also classified the evolution of HRM in different way. They propose four broad era of HRM development, which includes: pre-industrial, paternalist, bureaucratic and high performance period. The “Pre-industrial” era was stuck between the seventeenth to eighteenth centuries. This is the era when the world witnesses a lot of discrimination, stiffness, and miss-association in the history of mankind. All manna of punishment was perpetrated on servant by their master. The “Paternalist era” occurred during late eighteenth to near the beginning twentieth century, the period witness rapid industrial development that lead high economic growth. During this era, there was abolition of master and servant act to the more modern management practices of employee motivation. The Bureaucratic era started immediate before the First World War and after. During this era, organization experts, labor movement leaders, and HRM scholars were all agitating for changes in HRM practices that were unfriendly and hostile which were inherited from the Paternalist era. The agitation for changes by HRM experts give birth to personnel department that lead to a better practices of job analysis, job evaluation, job classification, employee selection techniques, and training and development. The era also witness a lot of labor union movement that represent and agitate for more favorable working environment. The High Performance period, as the world becomes global the expansion of open market system was increasingly practices; this practices lead to competition among organization, the need for organizations to use their resources, including HR to gain high performance and sustain competitive advantages arises. In this era organization apply various management skills and experiences, including HR practices to improve organization performance, these practices include training and development, motivation, employee appraisal and commitment (Langbert and Friedman 2002).Another group of HRM scholars and experts also categorized HRM growth into four periods, with each of this period has its own unique impact on organization and their employee. According to Nankervis et al. (2008) HRM growth stages is categorized into four period, the first era started from the beginning of 1990 to 1940, this era was about welfare and administration. In this period supervisors, first line managers and experts were responsible for the performance of personnel management function. The second period begin from late 1940s to the mid of 1970s, this stage incorporate welfare and administration but more emphasis was on employee selection and training. In this stage, the foundation of professionalism and specialization were built into personnel management approach. The third stage was transitional period; the period was between mid-1970s to late 1990s, the era from administrative function to strategic practices. In this era, at first we witness transition from personnel management to HRM and then another transition from HRM again to strategic HRM practices. Both personnel management function and HRM function were incorporated and integrated into strategic HRM practices which focuses on organization overall effectiveness. Finally, the fourth era which is refers as the strategic HRM practices or 21st century era. In this period, HRM practices are one important component that can help organization to become more effective and efficient2.3. The Transition from Personnel Management to HRMThe beginning 1970s personnel management witness massive improvement but suddenly in 1980s there were reportedly decline in the usage. Industrial relation was not left out, IR follow the opposite direction. Subsequently, HRM scholars highlighted numerous reasons responsible for personnel management new born onward drive. The commencement of the history when the name was change, personnel management history can be trace back to the last quart of 1910 to 1960s with a lot of similarities with industrial relations in terms of practices and employee managerial function. Increasingly numbers of scholars and researcher, like Miner and Miners, mutually combine both personnel and industrial relations in their book title Personnel and Industrial Relation in 1973. Sooner or later, the brand name IR beginning to fade out, the IR mode of operation was outdated and their inability to find lasting solution to unionism. In 1990 IR was rebranded and equip to employment relations but its beginning was uncertain and unexcited. The personnel management has been facing a lot of criticism and all range of negative image in the past years, unfairly enough this condemnation was wildly believe. Moreover, Personnel management experts were able to coming up with a better idea, that restructure the brand and give a new meaning to the disciple, this new brand name is called Human Resource Management (Kaufman, B. 2014).Historically HRM field originate from personnel management fields (PM) and, secondly, PM in turn grow out of early industrial welfare work, scientific management, and industrial psychology. According to Galang et al.,(1999) Historically, HRM beginning to gain momentum in early 1980s, high numbers of considerable different were notice in terms of practices and function compare to personnel management, at that time, a lot of academic scholar suggested that a new innovation was born.HRM is known to have initiated from U.S. business schools. Both Harvard and Michigan business school play significant roles in this transition. High numbers of Harvard business scholars in including Michael Beer, Paul Lawrence, D. Quinn Mills, Burt Spector, and Richard Walton in 1984 to 1985 published several books and journals that introduce new innovative idea of HRM. The innovative idea demonstrate extremely important and lead to a key assessment of what HRM is about (Reichel and Mayrhofer, 2009). Some authors also suggested that HRM function are developed and practices in different era. Lawrence (1985) added that HRM function originated through five diverse era or models from the beginning of 1800s: expertise or craft era that were influence practices till 1820s, than Market oriented practices were dominant from the last quarter of 1820 till First World War. The technical or scientific practices were pre dominant from First World War till Second World War, Career path era dominant into 1980s, and finally Commitment era evolve. The author concluded that HRM term was not just a new brand name for PIR but innovative pattern structure around the buddy commitment model of managing employee. Beer and Spector (1984) provide a detail explanation to the substantial diverse belief and practices that differentiate the new HRM practices from the outdated PIR assumption that was too bureaucratic, see employee as a variable cost rather than assets, PIR, were also too reactive, compliance oriented, relatively low trust among employee and also used external control in dealing with employee. The new HRM practices was working in the opposite direction: they attempt to build competitive advantage through HRM function, minimized cost by reducing chain of command and managerial structure and promotion better employee self-management; encouraging additional productive and self-motivated “learning organization” by build wide-range forums for employee involvement and instruction; encouraging better working environment and excellent performance by guarantee employee work security, as well encouraging upward growth that faster democratic workplace culture. Finally, the new HRM function seem workforce not as goods or variable cost item but as a form of long-lasting asset that with adequate training and development can produce a unique value and create a competitive advantage.HRM expertise and scholars has put forward a numbers of factors that leading to the transition of Personnel management to HRM with emphasis on discovering new ideas, developing better theories, and improving practice. According to Guest (1987) a numbers of factors are responsible from the transition of personnel management to the new HRM practices, here cognize six factors that lead to the transition from personnel management practices to new proactive HRM practices; they include the need for organization explore competitive advantage through improved HRM practices; representation of quality; the inabilities of personnel management to encourage the possible advantages of efficient management of people; the reduction in labor movement and unionism; transformation in both employee and working environment as a result of more educated and enlighten employee and finally, the accessibility of more innovative practices. These factors have the abilities to influence and encourage HRM experts and researchers to endorse and implement new and improved HRM practices for managing employee. A numbers of scholars and practitioners have also show significant proof that HRM practices are unique from personnel management, Guest (1987) differentiate this uniqueness in three ways; HRM was only re-label personnel management without altering the functions and content; Secondly, the new HRM was use to re-equip and re-structure the responsibility of personnel management and replacing the old functions of the personnel department, with HRM department and finally; The new HRM offer a better and more equip proactive measure of managing employee. In another development, Legge (1995) advocate that the shift from personnel to HRM falls into three categories; the new HRM focus method and system for improvement of HR and develop skill for management and their employee; HRM offer a new approach that center around active measure for developing core business value, unlike personnel management that only support these business values; finally, the new HRM emphasis on the re-structuring and building a better organization ethnic. Additionally, he also examines the similarities and differences between personnel and HRM. At the same time, recognize four basic similarities, which include the significance of adaption and incorporation; relating work force improvement with organizational aims and success, put in place a proactive measure to ensure that the most educated and qualify applicant are employed and allocate employee management to first line managers. In a separate research, he discovered three majors differences between personnel and HRM; HRM emphases on the management of managerial employee while in personnel management process, managers are focus on the roles and function of junior employee; In personnel management process, personnel managers focus execution of personnel proceedings, HRM are accountable for the formulating and motivating core business value strategy that are HR oriented; finally, in HRM organization culture are coral component in building block, but personnel management de-emphasis the important of culture.2.4: The Emergence of Strategic HRM PracticesStrategic HRM practices originate in the last quarter of 1970s in the United States as academic thought, in the early 1980s strategic HRM practices witness gradually growth into a managerial disciple and incorporated into a management tool for business practices. For the past few years, the discipline emerges to have gain ground in terms of growth in academic formation and content. While strategic HRM practices is still in the process of having its theory improved and form of practices polished, a sensible and more refined body of facts and understanding now present about the general intention and relevance (Bamberger and Meshoulam 2000). In the early stage of HR development as discipline, more interest was center round employee’s capability and incentive to achieve organization objectives, there are a lot employees with special skills require to meeting this business needs. With the emergence of strategic HRM practices the focuses on now are employee knowledge, skills and abilities and business competitive advantages. This transition brings about tactical change in the HRM function and responsibilities, which influence the expectation of HR behavior within the organization. Tichy, et al., (1982) organized a commission for the function of the HR department in motivating employee performance. The bundle of HR practices have the capacity to influence employee performances as we as organization overall performance; the set of human resource functions are interdependent of each other; and finally, for strategic HRM practices to be efficient there must be effective HRM activities. Evans(1986) recognized four strategic consequences for HRM practices ; Employee interaction and fair play, which are symbolize in an organization internal structure; Organization competitiveness which represent organization abilities to build a sustainable competitive advantage with strategic HRM practices; Organization Innovativeness and flexibility depend on the ability to utilize this bundle of strategic HRM practices to create values; finally, Organization integration is the adoption and integration among different unit in an organization. He was among the first group of scholar to identified balanced scorecard method to evaluate strategic HRM practices effectiveness. The transition from administrative HRM to strategic approach was as a result of increase in competition and rapid change in global business environment that was witness in the 1980s, the charge was a rapid response to the global competitiveness that exist among organization. This strategic approach help organization to move above the functional administrative responsibility to a more strategic approach of aligning and matching employee with the organization overall strategic that are consider to be a sources of building a sustainable advantage ((Boxall and Purcell, 2008; Bamberger and Meshoulam, 2000).Moreover, new perception is constantly being included to the existing works by strategic HRM researchers and scholars at various level of strategic HRM discipline. Lengnick-Hall, Lengnick-Hall et al. (2009) in their current work, they purpose four different era of research of strategic HRM practices. As the discipline of strategic HRM practices emerges as a field of study in management the first era were between 1980 to 1990, the studies into the field were mainly theoretical and academic in nature, in this period strategy creation and accomplishment was regard as very necessary in research in the field of strategic HRM practices, and various HR practices were accepted within business corporation. The next era was the first quarter of 1990s, in this period strategic HRM practices implementation models (universalistic, contingency, configurational and contextual) was introduces and more proactive measure were taken to approve and implement standard in the field of research. The third era was between 2000-2005 HR blueprint were anticipated by strategic HRM scholars supported by experiential research and functional limitation like supply chain inputs were acknowledged alongside with arrangement of various procedures of managerial efficiency. In the same era, strategic HRM practices’s effect on top managerial group also attracts huge attention. Finally, the four era start in 2005 till date, the era also witness a lot of transformation from a normal HR function to strategic HR and the role of strategic HRM in building sustainable competitive advantage. Recently more scholars are focusing on implementation of strategic HRM policies and practices than formulating new policy and how international strategic HRM are practices in emerging countries. Human capital subject are constantly be examines and most importantly the contextual SHRM practices are also increasingly be attracting interest by strategic HRM (Budhwar and Debrah 2009). However, it has been noted that the criticism and argument in research circles, regarding strategic HRM practices, is mostly due to the lack of a strong academic theory in this field.2.5: Overview of Strategic HRM PracticesStrategic HRM practices are the pattern of plan HR deploys and behavior that intended to facilitate organization to achieve its goals (Wright and McMahan 1992). There are two idea suggested in this explanation, firm are able to influence their organization level of output or outcome through their HRM and secondly, the activities of bundle of organization HRM performance in a system rather than in isolation which explain the capability of HRM to influence organization at a strategic level. Strategic human resources management to an extent is all about integration and adaption. Its ensure that organizations HRM are fully integrated into organization strategic need; secondly, to ensure that HR strategic and policies coexist across all level of the organization; and finally, HR practices are familiar, established, and employ by line managers and other staff as part of their daily routine. HR center round the ability of organization align its HR practices, policies and programs with business and organization’s needs (Greer, 2001).In strategic HRM practices, employees are very important resource and vital component in firm’s performance. The major justification for strategic HRM practices is that by integrating HRM with the business strategy and by applying specific HR management system, organization will manage their employee efficiency, thereby improving both employee and sustainable competitive advantage (Farnham 2010). Strategic HRM practices emphasize on organization internal factors rather than external resources that affect firm’s performance. According to Barney (1991) organization workforce is regarded as a strategic resource that should be engaged in a group with other resources to improve organizational performance. Strategic HRM practices enhance both individual and organization performance, employee that are well trained, motivated are more committed, adapted, willing to put extra effort as well provide a superior performance (Becker and Huselid, 2006). The major variation between strategic HRMpractices and HRM is the adoption and integration of strategic decision into HRM procedure and plan to manage organization performance (Guest, 1989).The Michigan model of management was used to explain strategic HRM practices, the model stresses the need for adoption and integration between organization strategy, business needs and HRM practices, which have the capability to influence the external environment like economics, political, and cultural factors. The model emphasize the strategically arrangement of HRM function to realize organization business needs. However, the model also identify the different approach in managing employee, but depend on the business circumstance and how well the organization employee are motivated to have the interest of the organization at heart to achieve the organization aims.