- Email: [email protected]
The status of theory and research in human resource management: Where have we been and where should we go from here?
Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 93 – 95 www.elsevier.com/locate/humres
The status of theory and research in human resource management: Where have we been and where should we go from here? The field of human resource management (HRM) is concerned with such processes and practices as recruiting, selecting, motivating, training, compensating, and retaining workers. In view of the importance of these processes and practices to the success of organizations, a large body of theory and research in the field has focused on them. The HRM field has made important strides in improving various HRM processes and practices. Nevertheless, there are a number of areas in which additional work is needed. Thus, the overall purpose of this special issue of the journal is to consider the past, present, and future of HRM theory and research. The consideration of these issues is important because HRM theory and research has considerable potential to enhance organizational efficiency and effectiveness. However, to realize this potential, the field must continually evaluate and improve theory and research. As a result, articles in this special issue offer recommendations for doing so. Philosophers of science argue that one of the major goals of science is to develop valid explanations of phenomena, i.e., theories (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000; Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002). A theory is “a set of interrelated constructs, definitions, propositions that present a systematic view of phenomena by specifying relations among variables, with the purpose of explaining and predicting the phenomena” (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000, p. 11). Theories are very useful in terms of explanation, understanding, predicting, and controlling phenomena. In view of the importance of sound theory and research to HRM and allied disciplines (e.g., industrial and organizational psychology), a number of previous works have considered the status of theory and research in these disciplines (Campbell, 1990; Dunnette, 1990). The same works addressed (a) the current state of theory, research, and practice in these fields, and (b) the degree to which the results of HRM theory and research are relevant to key stakeholders in organizations (e.g., non-managerial and managerial workers). However, the just-noted works are somewhat dated, and there is a need for an up-to-date consideration of the status of theory and research in HRM. Thus, the purpose of the articles in this special issue is to meet this need. 1. Status of theory and research in human resource management As noted above, one of the goals of science is the development of valid theories and models that can be used to explain, predict, and control phenomena. However, a number of researchers in HRM have argued that (a) the field is largely atheoretical, and (b) there is often a lack of theory to guide research on key issues (Campbell, 1990; Dunnette, 1990). Another goal of science is to critically test predictions stemming from the models and theories in a field. However, researchers contend that much of our research is of low quality, and typically describes organizational phenomena rather than testing the effectiveness of HRM practices (Dunnette, 1990). They also maintain that our research methods are limited, and do not always address the complexity that exists in organizational settings (Dunnette, 1990). A third goal of HRM as a science is to enhance the effectiveness of organizations, and the well-being of employees. However, critics argue that a high percentage of our published papers focus on trivial issues, and do not always make important contributions to applied problems (Dunnette, 1990). As a result, they believe that much of our research has limited utility and applicability in organizations. Given these arguments, this special issue includes articles that focus on two primary issues. First, several articles focus on the status of theory, research, and practice in the field of HRM as a whole. Second, a number of articles consider the status of theory and research in specialized areas of HRM 1053-4822/$ - see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2007.04.005
94
Editorial
including employee relations, selection, training, compensation, benefits, and safety and health. Each of these articles is described in the sections that follow. 2. Articles that focus on the status of theory, research, and practice in all areas of HRM As noted above, several articles in this special consider the status of theory, research and practice in HRM, and offer recommendations for advancing the field as a whole. First, the article by Dipboye argues that a successful science (a) demonstrates cumulative progress in theory development, (b) is rigorous in its methodology, and (c) is relevant to important stakeholders. Furthermore, the paper maintains that the science of HRM falls short of all three of these goals, and needs more theory-based research that focuses on the pursuit of important research questions. Second, the article by Latham and Stuart contends that valid theories in HRM provide frameworks for predicting, understanding, and influencing the behavior of individuals in organizations. It also suggests that the soundness of our theories can be examined by assessing the degree to which HRM scientists are willing to apply relevant theory to practices in their own organizations. The authors also provide examples of how HRM theories can be used to drive such practices as selection, training, and coaching in organizations. Next, the article by Ferris, Perrewe, Ranft, Zinko, Stoner, Brouer, and Laird provides an intriguing view of theory and research on the reputation and effectiveness of HRM. The authors argue that the field of HRM has a much maligned history of being viewed as a “problem-driven” discipline that is devoid of sound theory. As a result, they present an integrative theory of HRM reputation that is based on several existing theories, including (a) strategic contingency theory of power, (b) resource dependence theory, (c) signaling theory, (d) institutional theory, and (e) social comparison theory. Following this, the article by Deadrick and Gibson focuses on the degree to which HRM research is relevant to practice. They reviewed over 4300 articles published in four HRM journals over a 20 year period of time, considering such issues as topic area and journal orientation (HRM research versus HRM practice). Their analyses revealed that there were numerous interest gaps between HRM professionals and academics. For instance, HRM professionals were far more interested in the area of compensation than were HRM researchers. Similarly, HRM researchers were more likely to be interested in motivation or other organizational behavior-related topics than HRM professionals. Given these findings, the authors offered suggestions for closing the gap between HRM research and practice. Then, the article by Cardy, Miller, and Ellis offers a new theoretical framework for HRM labeled “employee equity.” The theory shifts the primary unit of an analysis from tasks to people. The authors argue that HRM has largely explored the job as the central organizing construct, and this viewpoint has given rise to the functional emphasis that serves to define the field. Their approach to managing people shifts the focus to the employee's perspective, and argues that meeting the needs of employees will help promote loyalty and retention in organizations. The final article in this section by Stone, Stone-Romero, and Lukaszewski considers the influence of culture on the acceptance and effectiveness of such HRM policies and practices as recruitment, selection, training, performance management, and compensation. The authors argue that many of the models in the field of HRM are underdeveloped because they do not explicitly consider the effects of culture. This is an especially important issue because of such factors as the growing globalization of business and the increased diversity of the U.S. workforce. 3. Articles on the status of theory and research in specific areas of HRM As indicated above, several articles in this special issue focus on the status of theory and research in specialized areas of HRM. In particular, six articles consider theory and research on (a) the employee-organizational relationships, (b) training, (c) compensation, (d) benefits, (e) integrity testing, and (e) safety and health training. First, Coyle-Shapiro and Shore examine the state of theory and research on employee–organizational relationships (e.g., psychological contracts, perceived organizational support). They also discuss the limitations of current theory and research, and offer suggestions for future research on micro and macro views of employee–organizational relationships. Then, Chen and Klimoski consider progress and gaps in the organizational training and development literature. They also describe several criteria against which scientific progress in HRM can be evaluated, including the what, how, why, and when of various phenomena. Moreover, they offer recommendations for future theory development and research on training and development. Next, Dulebohn and Werling address the status of research on compensation in organizations. They argue that past compensation research has focused largely on an internal (e.g., job evaluation, internal equity) rather than an external framework. However, recent environmental changes have led to the need to place greater emphasis on external factors
Editorial
95
(e.g., external labor markets, market pricing, and external competitiveness). Thus, they contend that future research on compensation should devote more attention to external factors. Following this, Dencker, Joshi, and Martocchio consider the effects of age heterogeneity on the effectiveness of benefits programs. They argue that most benefit programs rest on the assumption that employees have similar attitudes and will be motivated by similar benefits systems. However, changes in the workforce call this assumption into question. More specifically, the authors contend that desires for specific types of benefits will vary as a function of age, and will stem from inter-generational differences in values and attitudes. They also offer directions for future research and practice on benefit systems. Then, Karren and Zacharias review and critique extant research on the use of overt integrity tests as a preemployment screening device. They argue that the same research raises questions about the construct validity of such tests, and the degree to which they lead to false positive selection errors. They also suggest that future research should consider issues of faking, coaching, fairness, and privacy when evaluating the use of these tests in organizational settings. Finally, Burke, Scheuer, and Meredith discuss the theoretical role of dialogue in the development of safety and health training programs. They argue that what is missing from many applications of learning theory to safety and health training is the element of dialogue. In addition, they consider how researchers, trainers, and trainees can develop dialogues to enhance learning and improve safety and health in organizations. 4. Conclusion In conclusion, the purpose of this special issue is to consider the status of theory and research in the field of HRM, and offer recommendations for advancing the field as a whole. It is my hope that the articles in this special issue will enhance theory development, and foster needed research on key HRM issues. I also hope that it will heighten interest in research that will improve both the effectiveness of organizations, and quality of work life of employees. Finally, it has been a pleasure to work on this special issue, and I want to express my gratitude to Rodger Griffeth for giving me this wonderful opportunity. I also want to thank all of the authors who wrote articles for the issue. I have no doubt that their work will make important and lasting contributions to theory, research, and practice in HRM. Furthermore, I want to thank Eugene Stone-Romero for his special assistance and help with the journal. His insightful suggestions certainly improved this special issue. In addition I want to express my appreciation to (a) all members of the HRMR editorial board who served as reviewers for this issue, and (b) a number of non-board members who provided reviews, i.e., Diana Deadrick, Donna Blancero, James Dulebohn, Erik Eddy, Gerald Ferris, Linda Isenhour, Ronald Karren, Gary Latham, Kimberly Lukaszewski, Joseph Martocchio, Janet Marler, David Mayer, Janice Miller, Edilberto Montemayor, Michael Moore, Ronald Piccolo, Randall Schuler, Lynn Shore, Robert Sinclair, Eugene StoneRomero, and Fraya Wagner-Marsh. References Campbell, J. P. (1990). The role of theory in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette. & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 39−74). 2d Ed. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Dunnette, M. D. (1990). Blending the science and practice of industrial and organizational psychology: Where are we and where are we going? In M. D. Dunnette. & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1−28). 2d Ed. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B. (2000). Foundations of behavioral research, (4th edition). South Melbourne, Australia: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Dianna L. Stone University of Texas at San Antonio, United States E-mail address: [email protected].
The status of theory and research in human resource management: Where have we been and where should we go from here? The field of human resource management (HRM) is concerned with such processes and practices as recruiting, selecting, motivating, training, compensating, and retaining workers. In view of the importance of these processes and practices to the success of organizations, a large body of theory and research in the field has focused on them. The HRM field has made important strides in improving various HRM processes and practices. Nevertheless, there are a number of areas in which additional work is needed. Thus, the overall purpose of this special issue of the journal is to consider the past, present, and future of HRM theory and research. The consideration of these issues is important because HRM theory and research has considerable potential to enhance organizational efficiency and effectiveness. However, to realize this potential, the field must continually evaluate and improve theory and research. As a result, articles in this special issue offer recommendations for doing so. Philosophers of science argue that one of the major goals of science is to develop valid explanations of phenomena, i.e., theories (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000; Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002). A theory is “a set of interrelated constructs, definitions, propositions that present a systematic view of phenomena by specifying relations among variables, with the purpose of explaining and predicting the phenomena” (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000, p. 11). Theories are very useful in terms of explanation, understanding, predicting, and controlling phenomena. In view of the importance of sound theory and research to HRM and allied disciplines (e.g., industrial and organizational psychology), a number of previous works have considered the status of theory and research in these disciplines (Campbell, 1990; Dunnette, 1990). The same works addressed (a) the current state of theory, research, and practice in these fields, and (b) the degree to which the results of HRM theory and research are relevant to key stakeholders in organizations (e.g., non-managerial and managerial workers). However, the just-noted works are somewhat dated, and there is a need for an up-to-date consideration of the status of theory and research in HRM. Thus, the purpose of the articles in this special issue is to meet this need. 1. Status of theory and research in human resource management As noted above, one of the goals of science is the development of valid theories and models that can be used to explain, predict, and control phenomena. However, a number of researchers in HRM have argued that (a) the field is largely atheoretical, and (b) there is often a lack of theory to guide research on key issues (Campbell, 1990; Dunnette, 1990). Another goal of science is to critically test predictions stemming from the models and theories in a field. However, researchers contend that much of our research is of low quality, and typically describes organizational phenomena rather than testing the effectiveness of HRM practices (Dunnette, 1990). They also maintain that our research methods are limited, and do not always address the complexity that exists in organizational settings (Dunnette, 1990). A third goal of HRM as a science is to enhance the effectiveness of organizations, and the well-being of employees. However, critics argue that a high percentage of our published papers focus on trivial issues, and do not always make important contributions to applied problems (Dunnette, 1990). As a result, they believe that much of our research has limited utility and applicability in organizations. Given these arguments, this special issue includes articles that focus on two primary issues. First, several articles focus on the status of theory, research, and practice in the field of HRM as a whole. Second, a number of articles consider the status of theory and research in specialized areas of HRM 1053-4822/$ - see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2007.04.005
94
Editorial
including employee relations, selection, training, compensation, benefits, and safety and health. Each of these articles is described in the sections that follow. 2. Articles that focus on the status of theory, research, and practice in all areas of HRM As noted above, several articles in this special consider the status of theory, research and practice in HRM, and offer recommendations for advancing the field as a whole. First, the article by Dipboye argues that a successful science (a) demonstrates cumulative progress in theory development, (b) is rigorous in its methodology, and (c) is relevant to important stakeholders. Furthermore, the paper maintains that the science of HRM falls short of all three of these goals, and needs more theory-based research that focuses on the pursuit of important research questions. Second, the article by Latham and Stuart contends that valid theories in HRM provide frameworks for predicting, understanding, and influencing the behavior of individuals in organizations. It also suggests that the soundness of our theories can be examined by assessing the degree to which HRM scientists are willing to apply relevant theory to practices in their own organizations. The authors also provide examples of how HRM theories can be used to drive such practices as selection, training, and coaching in organizations. Next, the article by Ferris, Perrewe, Ranft, Zinko, Stoner, Brouer, and Laird provides an intriguing view of theory and research on the reputation and effectiveness of HRM. The authors argue that the field of HRM has a much maligned history of being viewed as a “problem-driven” discipline that is devoid of sound theory. As a result, they present an integrative theory of HRM reputation that is based on several existing theories, including (a) strategic contingency theory of power, (b) resource dependence theory, (c) signaling theory, (d) institutional theory, and (e) social comparison theory. Following this, the article by Deadrick and Gibson focuses on the degree to which HRM research is relevant to practice. They reviewed over 4300 articles published in four HRM journals over a 20 year period of time, considering such issues as topic area and journal orientation (HRM research versus HRM practice). Their analyses revealed that there were numerous interest gaps between HRM professionals and academics. For instance, HRM professionals were far more interested in the area of compensation than were HRM researchers. Similarly, HRM researchers were more likely to be interested in motivation or other organizational behavior-related topics than HRM professionals. Given these findings, the authors offered suggestions for closing the gap between HRM research and practice. Then, the article by Cardy, Miller, and Ellis offers a new theoretical framework for HRM labeled “employee equity.” The theory shifts the primary unit of an analysis from tasks to people. The authors argue that HRM has largely explored the job as the central organizing construct, and this viewpoint has given rise to the functional emphasis that serves to define the field. Their approach to managing people shifts the focus to the employee's perspective, and argues that meeting the needs of employees will help promote loyalty and retention in organizations. The final article in this section by Stone, Stone-Romero, and Lukaszewski considers the influence of culture on the acceptance and effectiveness of such HRM policies and practices as recruitment, selection, training, performance management, and compensation. The authors argue that many of the models in the field of HRM are underdeveloped because they do not explicitly consider the effects of culture. This is an especially important issue because of such factors as the growing globalization of business and the increased diversity of the U.S. workforce. 3. Articles on the status of theory and research in specific areas of HRM As indicated above, several articles in this special issue focus on the status of theory and research in specialized areas of HRM. In particular, six articles consider theory and research on (a) the employee-organizational relationships, (b) training, (c) compensation, (d) benefits, (e) integrity testing, and (e) safety and health training. First, Coyle-Shapiro and Shore examine the state of theory and research on employee–organizational relationships (e.g., psychological contracts, perceived organizational support). They also discuss the limitations of current theory and research, and offer suggestions for future research on micro and macro views of employee–organizational relationships. Then, Chen and Klimoski consider progress and gaps in the organizational training and development literature. They also describe several criteria against which scientific progress in HRM can be evaluated, including the what, how, why, and when of various phenomena. Moreover, they offer recommendations for future theory development and research on training and development. Next, Dulebohn and Werling address the status of research on compensation in organizations. They argue that past compensation research has focused largely on an internal (e.g., job evaluation, internal equity) rather than an external framework. However, recent environmental changes have led to the need to place greater emphasis on external factors
Editorial
95
(e.g., external labor markets, market pricing, and external competitiveness). Thus, they contend that future research on compensation should devote more attention to external factors. Following this, Dencker, Joshi, and Martocchio consider the effects of age heterogeneity on the effectiveness of benefits programs. They argue that most benefit programs rest on the assumption that employees have similar attitudes and will be motivated by similar benefits systems. However, changes in the workforce call this assumption into question. More specifically, the authors contend that desires for specific types of benefits will vary as a function of age, and will stem from inter-generational differences in values and attitudes. They also offer directions for future research and practice on benefit systems. Then, Karren and Zacharias review and critique extant research on the use of overt integrity tests as a preemployment screening device. They argue that the same research raises questions about the construct validity of such tests, and the degree to which they lead to false positive selection errors. They also suggest that future research should consider issues of faking, coaching, fairness, and privacy when evaluating the use of these tests in organizational settings. Finally, Burke, Scheuer, and Meredith discuss the theoretical role of dialogue in the development of safety and health training programs. They argue that what is missing from many applications of learning theory to safety and health training is the element of dialogue. In addition, they consider how researchers, trainers, and trainees can develop dialogues to enhance learning and improve safety and health in organizations. 4. Conclusion In conclusion, the purpose of this special issue is to consider the status of theory and research in the field of HRM, and offer recommendations for advancing the field as a whole. It is my hope that the articles in this special issue will enhance theory development, and foster needed research on key HRM issues. I also hope that it will heighten interest in research that will improve both the effectiveness of organizations, and quality of work life of employees. Finally, it has been a pleasure to work on this special issue, and I want to express my gratitude to Rodger Griffeth for giving me this wonderful opportunity. I also want to thank all of the authors who wrote articles for the issue. I have no doubt that their work will make important and lasting contributions to theory, research, and practice in HRM. Furthermore, I want to thank Eugene Stone-Romero for his special assistance and help with the journal. His insightful suggestions certainly improved this special issue. In addition I want to express my appreciation to (a) all members of the HRMR editorial board who served as reviewers for this issue, and (b) a number of non-board members who provided reviews, i.e., Diana Deadrick, Donna Blancero, James Dulebohn, Erik Eddy, Gerald Ferris, Linda Isenhour, Ronald Karren, Gary Latham, Kimberly Lukaszewski, Joseph Martocchio, Janet Marler, David Mayer, Janice Miller, Edilberto Montemayor, Michael Moore, Ronald Piccolo, Randall Schuler, Lynn Shore, Robert Sinclair, Eugene StoneRomero, and Fraya Wagner-Marsh. References Campbell, J. P. (1990). The role of theory in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette. & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 39−74). 2d Ed. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Dunnette, M. D. (1990). Blending the science and practice of industrial and organizational psychology: Where are we and where are we going? In M. D. Dunnette. & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1−28). 2d Ed. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B. (2000). Foundations of behavioral research, (4th edition). South Melbourne, Australia: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Dianna L. Stone University of Texas at San Antonio, United States E-mail address: [email protected].