Human Resource Management (HRM) and Performance: Progress and Prospects
Journal of Management Studiesthat emphasised a focus on the strategic contribution of HRM practices to employee outcomes and measures of organisational performance.A vast number of research studies have since devised ways to dissect HRM practices in an attempt to explain and predict, with ever greater accuracy, how the strategic implementation of HRM is related to important outcomes for an organisation.Two decades on from Guest's seminal article, it is appropriate to reassess his HRM framework and the research that has followed in its stream.Using Guest's framework as a starting point, Paauwe surveys the rise of HRM research and the progress made with measuring the impact of HRM on employee and organisational performance.He re-analyses the results of large-scale studies and concludes that, despite the early promises, results have been mixed and inconclusive.Progress has been halted because of studies using firm-level research designs and coarse, retrospective data that limit any causal inferences about the contribution of HRM.Paauwe makes a number of recommendations including longitudinal research and multi-level research designs that he anticipates will move the field closer to an integrative theory that connects individual employees, singular or bundled HRM practices, and organisational outcomes.One important way in which such a theory can be pieced together, Paauwe suggests, is by combining multi-level, longitudinal research designs with more contextual and interpretive case-based research on the performance of HRM practices.In this way, a functionalist, largely managerial perspective is extended with a more sociological perspective on employee well-being and workplace dynamics.However, instead of articulating how the respective contribution of these research approaches can be theoretically synthesised, Paauwe ends his contribution by noting the tensions that exist between reconciling these perspectives and their underlying values.In the Counterpoint, Janssens and Steyaert elaborate on this fissure and recommend a shift of HRM research towards a more critical, pluralistic account that adds a reading of the politicised nature of HRM and the employment relationship, stretches definitions of employee subjectivity and well-being, and appropriates a wider stakeholder based view of the underpinnings of HRM.Janssens and Steyaert argue that by adroitly entertaining and reflecting upon multiple readings of HRM and performance, researchers can avoid the stranglehold of the predominant managerial orientation.This kind of reflexivity will instead allow them to recognise the inherent complexities and tensions in