We must consider the relevance of context to the creation of these role typologies. In
addition to considering the content of the roles, the typology of HR department roles
presented by Monks (1992) suggests that in stable environments, a simple model of HRM
practice will suffice. It is only in complex organisations particularly undergoing substantial
change where a more sophisticated approach to practice is required. Other commentators support this linkage between the nature of HRM practices and the needs of the
organisational context (Carroll, 1991; Guest, 1991). Indeed, the typologies themselves show
the range of roles which HR has developed in a historical context. The initial role of a focus
on employee welfare, and increasingly a means of controlling employee absence, developed
into the bureaucratic element of the HR role we see today. The rise of the power of trade
unions at local company level resulted in the negotiator role, which has since declined again
in line with further changes in the industrial relations context. In the 1980s, the rise of HRM
turned attention to the strategic role of HR and its role in helping organisations manage
change as the business environment became more competitive.