Human Resource Management of Intel : Intel Corporation (NASDAQ: INTC; SEHK: 4335; Euronext: INCO) is an American global technology company and the world's largest semiconductor chip maker, based on revenue.[5] It is the inventor of the x86 series of microprocessors, the processors found in most personal computers. Intel was founded on July 18, 1968, as Integrated Electronics Corporation (though a common misconception is that "Intel" is from the word intelligence) and is based in Santa Clara, California, USA. Intel also makes motherboard chipsets, network interface controllers and integrated circuits, flash memory, graphic chips, embedded processors and other devices related to communications and computing. Founded by semiconductor pioneers Robert Noyce and Gordon Moore and widely associated with the executive leadership and vision of Andrew Grove, Intel combines advanced chip design capability with a leading-edge manufacturing capability. Originally known primarily to engineers and technologists, Intel's "Intel Inside" advertising campaign of the 1990s made it and its Pentium processor household names.

Intel was an early developer of SRAM and DRAM memory chips, and this represented the majority of its business until 1981. While Intel created the first commercial microprocessor chip in 1971, it was not until the success of the personal computer (PC) that this became their primary business. During the 1990s, Intel invested heavily in new microprocessor designs fostering the rapid growth of the computer industry. During this period Intel became the dominant supplier of microprocessors for PCs, and was known for aggressive and sometimes controversial tactics in defense of its market position, particularly against AMD, as well as a struggle with Microsoft for control over the direction of the PC industry.[6][7] The 2010 rankings of the world's 100 most powerful brands published by Millward Brown Optimor showed the company's brand value at number 48.[


HRM labelled strategic human resource management, or SHRM. By a
strategic approach to HRM, we are referring to a managerial process requiring human
resource (HR) policies and practices to be linked with the strategic objectives of the
organization. Just as the term ‘human resource management’ has been contested, so
too has the notion of SHRM. One aspect for debate is the lack of conceptual clarity
(Bamberger & Meshoulam, 2000). Do, for example, the related concepts of SHRM and
HR strategy relate to a process or an outcome?
Over the past decade, HR researchers and practitioners have focused their attention
on other important questions. First, what determines whether an organization adopts
a strategic approach to HRM, and how is HR strategy formulated? Of interest is which
organizations are most likely to adopt a strategic approach to HRM. Is there, for
example, a positive association with a given set of external and internal characteristics
or contingencies and the adoption of SHRM? Another area of interest concerns the
policies and practices making up different HR strategies. Is it possible to identify a
cluster or ‘bundle’ of HR practices with different strategic competitive models? Finally,
much research productivity in recent years has been devoted to examining the relationship
between different clusters of HR practices and organizational performance.
Does HR strategy really matter? For organizational practitioners who are looking for
ways to gain a competitive advantage, the implication of HR strategic choices for
company performance is certainly the key factor.
Before, however, we look at some of the issues associated with the SHRM debate, we
need first to examine the strategic management process. This chapter also examines
whether it is possible to speak of different ‘models’ of HR strategy and the degree to
which these types of HR strategy systematically vary between organizations. We then
consider some issues associated with SHRM, including international and comparative
SHRM. As for the question of whether there is a positive association between different
HR strategies and organizational performance, we are of the opinion that, given the
importance and volume of the research surrounding this issue, the topic warrants an
extended discussion (Chapter 13). In the current chapter, we address a number of
questions, some essential to our understanding of how work organizations operate in
the early 21st century work and the role of HRM therein. How do ‘big’ corporate decisions
impact on HRM? Does the evidence suggest that firms adopting different
competitive strategies adopt different HR strategies? How does HRM impact on the
‘bottom line’? There is a common theme running through this chapter, much of the
HR research pointing out that there are fundamental structural constraints that attest
to the complexity of implementing different HRM models.


Determining the anatomy and impact of the human resource management function and

its associated activities remains an important, if sometimes uncertain, line of inquiry in

organisation science. It has been argued (Mayrhofer et al., 2000) that the very nature of

the concept of HRM (what we are studying in the field) remains contested, that the

levels at which the concept can be applied and the consequent range of studies that will

be pursued is unclear and the range and role of the potential actors involved (as objects

of investigation in our HRM studies) may vary. These differences result in

fundamentally different paradigms for research into the nature, impact and

consequences of HRM where different researchers deploy competing models or

theories. Indeed, Mayrhofer et al. (2000) argue that it is the difference between

paradigms which has led to the confusion noted by many about what should be the

focus of investigation (Boxall, 1993; Dyer and Kochan, 1995; Goss, 1994; Martell and

Caroll, 1995). This fundamental conceptual debate has direct consequences for the

nature and scope of what we investigate and theorise about in HRM and, as a debate, it

finds particular resonance in investigations on the contemporary nature of the HR

function. Constrained by legacies, harried by change and questioned about its

contribution in an exacting business environment, the contemporary nature of the HR

function is not especially well documented. In light of the fact that the very profession

itself is changing with a growth and expansion of the HR role being matched by a

progressively increasing emphasis on professionalisation, so too may the function be

changing in parallel taking on different structural configurations, taking advantage of

new technologies and embracing new agendas. While a long wave retrospective view

of the history of the function would undoubtedly demonstrate considerable change,
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top