| Evaluating the HR function : empirical studies on HRM architecture and HRM system strength (2008) | |||||||||||||
Abstract | |||||||||||||
| With the increasing demands of today’s business environment, the HR function is under pressure to justify its existence and to demonstrate its contribution to the organization and its stakeholders (Showkeir & Showkeir, 2006; Ulrich, 1997). As a result, the evaluation of human resource management (HRM) has become a central issue in both research and practice.The ability of the HR function to measure and evaluate its impact is of high importance for several reasons. First, by measuring its contribution and showing its value to the organization, the HR function might increase credibility and legitimacy (Armstrong, 2003), thereby enhancing its power and influence. Second, what gets measured gets managed and improved (Ulrich, 1997). HRM evaluation provides HR managers with feedback on the practices and programs they introduced. Subsequently, potential deficiencies and problems can be tackled. Third, HRM evaluation is useful to detect problems in its internal functioning and to identify opportunities for improvement.Despite the high importance of and the growing interest in HRM evaluation, there are still some major empirical gaps and unanswered questions. We quote three important research gaps.First, in most HRM evaluation research the value added of the HR function is evaluated through its practices (e.g. HR practices such as training, recruitment & selection, compensation,…). Although this perspective is valuable, more research is needed that looks at the effectiveness of the HR function itself. The effectiveness of HR roles (Caldwell, 2003; Ulrich, 1997) and the organization of the HR function (HR outsourcing, HR devolution,…) (Valverde et al., 2006) have been studied less. Thus, relatively little attention has been paid to the effect of the HRM architecture (i.e. the organization of the HR function within the organisation). Yet, whether HRM adds value might depend on this factor as well.Second and related to the first point, the majority of HRM evaluation research has mainly concentrated on the effectiveness of individual HR practices or a system of HR practices (for recent reviews see: Boselie et al., 2005; Combs et al., 2006; Gerhart, 2005; Paauwe & Boselie, 2005; Wall & Wood, 2005). HR content, which refers to ‘the specific set of HR practices necessary for achieving an organizational goal’ (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004, p. 204) is central to these studies. ‘Good HRM’ is considered to be a synonym of a set of well-developed HR practices. However, the contribution of HR practices to firm performance is not only determined by the content of HR practices, but also by the organizational context in which HR practices are implemented. A consequence is that HR practices cannot be regarded as generic features of the HRM system. This makes HR practices less suitable for cross-context comparisons. Therefore, we think that HRM evaluation research has to include more generic characteristics of the HRM system that can be broadly measured and assessed. We argue that the HRM system consists of two parts: (1) characteristics of the HRM message senders (e.g. HR staff) and (b) characteristics of HRM messages (signals sent by HR staff through HR practices). A benefit of these generic characteristics is that they are less context-specific (contrary to HR practices) and show more potential for cross-organizational and cross-cultural comparison.Third, most HRM evaluation studies use the input of single respondents, in most cases the input from HR managers (self-evaluation). Such approaches implicitly assume that the HR manager can accurately represent the opinions of all organizational members with regard to HR practices. However, this approach may not adequately represent reality because it ignores the variability in employee perceptions regarding HR practices (Nishii & Wright, 2007). Thus, accurate HRM evaluation requires judgments and perceptions of the internal HR ‘customers’ such as line managers, employees or trade unions representatives. To date, relatively little attention has been paid to stakeholder or constituency perspectives in evaluating HRM (Colakoglu et al., 2006). Yet, ‘the most sensible and the most important indicator of HRM effectiveness will be the judgments of key stakeholders’ (Guest & Peccei, 1994, p. 224). Some studies indeed include internal stakeholders such as top managers (e.g. Nankervis et al., 2002), employees (e.g. Chang, 2005) or line managers (e.g. Wright et al., 2001). While these studies generate useful insights into how the HR function is perceived by its internal customers, few empirical studies have examined HRM evaluation from a trade union perspective (e.g. Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007). Yet, trade unions have been identified as one of the key stakeholders of the HR function (Paauwe, 2004). Therefore, we argue that trade unions should be involved in HRM evaluation research.This dissertation aims to tackle the three aforementioned gaps through four different HR studies. Two research components form the basis of the four different studies.In the first part of this dissertation, we focus on the HRM architecture. This part is made up of two empirical studies. The main goal of the first study is to give an overview of the existing literature concerning HR roles. More specifically, we try to understand and explore the variety in HR roles and to map out different HR role effectiveness studies. It is also the intention of this study to identify the topics that have not received much attention in research. The results of this review will be summarized in the form of a research agenda and research model (research gap 1). In study two we examine HR outsourcing and its impact on the HR function. The purpose of this study is to test whether HR outsourcing is a manifestation of a strategic HR focus, a cost-cutting HR focus or both. Thus, in this study, the relationship between HR outsourcing (as a component of the HR organization) and one HR role (strategic partner role) is examined (research gap 1).In the second part of this dissertation we focus on HRM system strength. The main purpose of these studies is to develop and validate an instrument to evaluate the HR function. This part also consists of two studies. The aim of study three is to describe the construction and empirical evaluation of a new instrument to measure HRM system strength (research gap 2). In study four we compare line managers’ and trade union representatives’ assessments of the strength of the HRM system and the criteria these respective stakeholders rely on when evaluating the strength of the HRM system (research gap 3).The dissertation consists of four different studies and an epilogue. The main goal of the first study is to give a brief state of the art about the HR function and HR roles. Based on an extensive literature and research review, this study attempts to summarize the current knowledge on HR roles. In study two we examine HR outsourcing and its impact on the HR function. The aim of study three is to describe the construction and empirical evaluation of a new instrument to measure HRM system strength. In study four we compare line managers’ and trade union representatives’ assessments of the strength of the HRM system and the criteria these respective stakeholders rely on when evaluating the strength of the HRM system. Finally, the epilogue consists of three parts. In the first part we briefly summarize the empirical and theoretical contribution of the dissertation. In part two we give some suggestions for future research. In part three, we focus on the managerial implications of the dissertation.. Doctor in de Toegepaste Economische Wetenschappen. Ond.gr. Personeel en Organisatie. OE Marketing en Organisatie (MO). Faculteit Economie en Bedrijfswetenschappen. Doctoral thesis. Doctoraatsthesis | |||||||||||||
Publication details | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||