Human Resource Management as a Field of Research*
| Author | Fernando Martín‐Alcázar,Pedro M. Romero‐Fernández,Gonzalo Sánchez‐Gardey |
| Published date | 01 June 2008 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2007.00540.x |
| Date | 01 June 2008 |
Human Resource Management as a Field
of Research
*
Fernando Martı
´n-Alca
´zar, Pedro M. Romero-Ferna
´ndez and
Gonzalo Sa
´nchez-Gardey
University of Ca
´diz, Facultad de Ciencias Econo
´micas y Empresariales, Plaza Carlos Cano,
s/n 11002 Ca
´diz, Spain
Corresponding author email: gonzalo.sanchez@uca.es
Drawing on Snow and Thomas’s (Journal of Management Studies, 31 (1994), pp. 457–
480) matrix, we empirically explore the state of the art in human resource management
(HRM) research. The data were obtained through a questionnaire directed to HRM
scholars all over the world, in which they were asked about their particular theoretical
and methodological approaches. The evidence obtained shows clearly that HRM
scholars are progressively abandoning the universalistic perspective and completing
their models with contingent and contextual variables. Trying to classify the different
contributions proposed and discuss their integration, HRM is described as a field of
research with three dimensions: subfunctional,strategic and international. The paper
concludes that to provide reliable explanations and valid responses to professional
problems, HRM research must advance simultaneously in these three dimensions. As
follows from our analysis, there are certain HR issues that still need to be addressed: (1)
the strategic use of HR practices, (2) their international applicability, (3) global HR
strategies and (4) the synergic integration of HR activities. Nevertheless, to advance our
knowledge in these issues, it seems necessary to integrate previous research in
subfunctional,strategic and international aspects of HRM.
Introduction
Over the last two decades, scholars have explored
how firms cope with globalization, competitive
uncertainty, and the threats from a changing
environment. Recent strategic models have fo-
cused mainly on inner determinants of competi-
tiveness, moving from an external to an internal
orientation (Hoskisson et al., 1999; Stopford and
Baden-Fuller, 1994). This change has produced a
shift from the traditional perspective of personnel
management, focused on administrative and
bureaucratic issues, to a more strategic orienta-
tion. In this sense, human resource management
(HRM) has started to be considered as a broad
function covering personnel management strate-
gies, policies, practices and overarching philoso-
phies (Schuler and Jackson, 1987a, 1987b).
Although HRM models originally were virtually
disconnected from strategic thinking, the increas-
ing importance of intangible resources has high-
lighted firms’ workforce and social issues as a
central element of strategy (Arago
´nSa
´nchez
et al., 2003; Boxall, 1996; Boxall and Purcell,
2003; Budhwar, 2000; Buller and Napier, 1993;
Carmona Moreno, Ce
´spedes Lorente and Je
´rez
Go
´mez, 2000; Hendry and Pettigrew, 1992).
Globalization has added new questions to the
HRM debate. As the literature at the beginning of
the 1990s pointed out, the increasing international
activity of firms and the new organizational forms
*
The authors are alphabetically ordered. This study has
benefited from financing from the Research Project
SEJ2004-01751/ECON of the Spanish Ministry of
Science and the Research Group SEJ-449 of the
Andalusian Government. The authors would like to
thank British Journal of Management reviewers for their
constructive comments on earlier versions of the paper.
British Journal of Management, Vol. 19, 103–119 (2008)
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2007.00540.x
r2007 British Academy of Management. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford
OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA, 02148, USA.
that appeared because of it made it necessary to
reconsider the influence of environmental variables
(Brewster, 1993; Schuler, Dowling and De Cieri,
1993; Sundaram and Black, 1992).
The HRM discipline has grown quickly from
the first models proposed to explore it from a
global and strategic perspective (Galbraith and
Nathanson, 1978; Lindtroh, 1982; Niniger, 1980;
Schuler, 1981; Sweet, 1982). In this process, we
must highlight the importance of some crucial
theoretical revisions (Brewster, 1999; Jackson and
Schuler, 1995; Wright and McMahan, 1992) as
well as special issues of dedicated journals such as
the International Journal of Human Resource
Management (1997) and the Human Resource
Management Review (1998). HRM has also
incorporated inputs from different psychological,
organizational, sociological and economic the-
ories, as Jackson and Schuler (1995) and McMa-
han, Virick and Wright (1999) have pointed out.
These inputs, together with a variety of articles,
journals and groups focused on the topic, describe
a state of the art characterized by a multiplicity
of theoretical approaches, methodologies and
research interests. The amount of knowledge
accumulated in the last few years draws a complex
state of the art in HRM. Therefore, it is necessary
to stop and think about research in this field in
order to state what we know, and point out the
issues that still need addressing.
In this sense, our paper contributes to the
HRM debate by clarifying the present landscape
in the discipline, describing covered and uncov-
ered topics, as well as the research approaches
and methodologies adopted by scholars. To do
so, we draw on data directly obtained from HR
academics from all over the world. As explained
later, this empirical analysis is based on Snow
and Thomas’s (1994) framework, which provides
an interesting description of the management
research process.
Review of the literature
Concept of HRM
A number of authors have pointed out that there
is confusion over the meaning of HRM, which
has restrained its theoretical development (Ferris
et al., 2004; Wright and Boswell, 2002). Scholars
have even found it difficult to distinguish it from
other related concepts, such as strategic HRM
(SHRM) (Delery and Shaw, 2001; Wright and
McMahan, 1992) or international HRM (Ozbil-
gin, 2004). Difficulty in defining the concept
arises from the broad domain of the field, which
covers several research areas and levels of
analysis (Delery and Shaw, 2001), and from its
relative youth (Wright and McMahan, 1992).
Authors such as Wright and McMahan (1992),
Boxall (1993, 1996), Truss and Gratton (1994),
Snell, Youndt and Wright (1996) and Ulrich
(1997) have tried to offer comprehensive defini-
tions able to integrate the different dimensions
that modern HRM involves.
In trying to shed some light on this complex
landscape, Boxall (1993, 1996) identified, using
an in-depth review of the literature, two different
ways of defining HRM. The first considers it as a
specific approach to manage employment rela-
tionships that is oriented to commitment, as
proposed by Walton (1985), Guest (1987) and
Storey (1995). The second definition considers
HRM in a more comprehensive manner, defining
it not as a particular orientation to personnel
management, but as a broader function directly
linked to a firm’s strategy. Boxall (1996, p. 59)
argued that, as a consequence of this approach,
HRM is not necessarily oriented to improving
employee commitment, and that none of the
possible personnel management orientations is
excluded. Wright and McMahan (1992), Jackson
and Schuler (1995) and Wright, Dunford and
Snell (2001) explained that different HRM
policies and practices can be designed depending
on a firm’s strategic orientation. Therefore, the
second approach, which several authors refer to
as SHRM, can be considered a broader way of
understanding HRM (Schuler and Jackson,
1987a; Wright and McMahan, 1992). The re-
source-based view of the firm played a crucial
role in providing solid theoretical arguments to
explain how a firm’s human capital, as an
idiosyncratic resource that is difficult to analyse
and imitate, can be a source of competitive
advantage (Wright, Dunford and Snell, 2001).
Regarding the level of analysis, HRM can be
conceptualized in two ways: (1) a micro orienta-
tion focused on functional issues; and (2) a macro
perspective that analyses it from a strategic
viewpoint (Fisher, 1989; Mahoney and Deckop,
1986; Wright and Boswell, 2002). For example,
Fisher (1989) differentiated between two types of
HRM activities: (1) one set related to the role of
104 F. Martı´n-Alca
´zar, P. M. Romero-Ferna
´ndez and G. Sa
´nchez-Gardey
r2007 British Academy of Management.
To continue reading
Request your trial