Professional touching behavior (PTB), defined as intentional touching behavior that occurs between organizational members and that falls within the boundaries of appropriateness and professionalism in the workplace, is prevalent in organizations. Scholars from multiple disciplines, including human resources researchers, have acknowledged the importance of physical contact for facilitating interpersonal communication and relationship-building. However, PTB may not only elicit positive reactions from those who receive it but also negative reactions as well, with implications for social dynamics in organizations. PTB can, on the one hand, fulfill employees’ desires for interpersonal connection; at the same time, such physical contact at work can represent a threat to employees’ health. To explain the nature and implications of these divergent effects of receiving PTB, the authors draw upon sociometer theory and behavioral immune system (BIS) theory to model the emotional, cognitive, and physiological processes via which, and the conditions under which, receiving such behavior will result in socially functional responses and prompt subsequent prosocial behavior, and when PTB will be perceived as a health risk and prompt withdrawal behavior. The theoretical framework of this chapter expands our conceptual understanding of the consequences of interpersonal physical contact at work and has important human resources management (HRM) implications for organizational managers.
The overall goal of science is to build a valid and reliable body of knowledge about the functioning of the world and how applying that knowledge can change it. As personnel and human resources management researchers, we aim to contribute to the respective bodies of knowledge to provide both employers and employees with a workable foundation to help with those problems they are confronted with. However, what research on research has consistently demonstrated is that the scientific endeavor possesses existential issues including a substantial lack of (a) solid theory, (b) replicability, (c) reproducibility, (d) proper and generalizable samples, (e) sufficient quality control (i.e., peer review), (f) robust and trustworthy statistical results, (g) availability of research, and (h) sufficient practical implications. In this chapter, we first sing a song of sorrow regarding the current state of the social sciences in general and personnel and human resources management specifically. Then, we investigate potential grievances that might have led to it (i.e., questionable research practices, misplaced incentives), only to end with a verse of hope by outlining an avenue for betterment (i.e., open science and policy changes at multiple levels).
Human resource (HR) process research emerged as a response to questions about how (bundles of) HR practices related to organizational outcomes. The goal of HR process research is to explain variability in employee and organization outcomes by focusing on how HR practices are intended (adopted) by senior managers, the way that these HR practices are implemented and communicated by line managers, and how employees perceive, understand, and attribute these HR practices. In the first part of this chapter, we present a review of 20 years of HR process research from the start, to how it developed, and is now maturing. Within the body of HR process research, several different research theoretical streams have emerged, which are largely studied in isolation without benefiting from each other. Therefore, in the second part of this chapter, we draw on previous work to propose a staged process model in which we integrate the different research streams of HR process research, recognizing contingencies in the model. This leads us to an agenda for future research and practical implications in the final part of the chapter. Keywords Employees’ perceptions of HR practices HR attributions HR implementation HR process research HRM system strength Intended HR practices Citation Sanders, K., Hewett, R. and Yang, H. (2023), "Looking Back to Move Forward: A 20-year Overview and an Integrated Model of Human Resource Process Research", Buckley, M.R., Wheeler, A.R., Baur, J.E. and Halbesleben, J.R.B. (Ed.) Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management (Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 41), Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 161-197. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0742-730120230000041007 Publisher: Emerald Publishing Limited Copyright © 2023 Karin Sanders, Rebecca Hewett and Huadong Yang Introduction There is a long-standing tradition in (strategic) human resource management (HRM) research to examine the effects of HR practices on organizational performance (Boon et al., 2019; Combs et al., 2006; Huselid, 1995; Jiang et al., 2012). To understand the so-called “black box” between HRM and performance (Purcell et al., 2003; Wright & Gardner, 2003), scholars have focused primarily on relationships between the content of individual HR practices – such as recruitment and selection, training and development, performance appraisal, remuneration, and rewards – and different organizational outcomes such as profit, revenue, and turnover of the organization. Recognizing that individual HR practices are likely interdependent on each other (Delery, 1998), research has also focused on the implications of combinations of individual HR practices, also called bundles or systems of HR practices, such as high-performance work systems (HPWS; Appelbaum et al., 2000) or high-commitment HR practices (Collins & Smith, 2006). The relationship between (bundles of) HR practices and organizational performance has traditionally been explained with theoretical frameworks at the organizational level (see Bednall et al., 2022). For instance, the resource-based view of the firm (Wright & McMahan, 2011) assumes that bundles of HR practices support firm performance by attracting, developing, and retaining top-performing employees whose skills and contributions align with the strategy of the organization. This enabled scholars to demonstrate that bundles of HR practices are related to organizational outcomes which can help organizations become more effective and achieve a competitive advantage (Jiang et al., 2012). While strategic HRM scholars have often assumed that these bundles of HR practices are also beneficial for employee outcomes, empirical studies indicate that this is not always the case (Jensen et al., 2013; Kroon et al., 2009), which suggests that there is variability between individuals and organizational units in the effectiveness of HR practices, and that some HR practices which are designed to increase organizational performance may, at times, do so at the expense of individual employees (e.g., increasing job demands). This growing evidence that even in the same organization, employees can perceive and respond to HR practices differently led to new theoretical developments. For instance, some variability in employee outcomes can be explained by how bundles of HR practices are communicated in the organization (Den Hartog et al., 2013) and by how employees interpret and understand these bundles of HR practices (Nishii et al., 2008). Building on these ideas, some HRM scholars have (re)framed the HRM-performance relationship as a communication challenge. This has led, over the past two decades, to increased attention on the “HR process,” suggesting that how HRM is communicated, received, and understood shapes employee outcomes (see Bowen & Ostroff, 2004; Guest, 2021; Hewett et al., 2018; Nishii et al., 2008; Ostroff & Bowen, 2016; Sanders et al., 2014, 2021; Wang et al., 2020). The goal of HR process research is to explain variability in employee outcomes by focusing on how HR practices are intended (adopted) by senior managers, how they are implemented and communicated by line managers, and how employees perceive, understand, and attribute these HR practices (Nishii & Wright, 2008; Sanders et al., 2021a; Wright & Nishii, 2013). In the first part of this chapter, we present a 20-year overview of HR process research in three stages. We first discuss the origins of the HR process approach including the (staged) process model of strategic HRM proposed by Wright and Nishii (20131), and two research frameworks which further elaborate the core elements of the process model: the strength of the HRM system (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004) and HR attributions. Second, building on this body of work, researchers started to test and replicate the hypotheses and propositions of these “early years” papers. This is reflected in a growing body of empirical research and the publication of three special issues: one in Human Resource Management (Sanders et al., 2014), one on HR attributions in Human Resource Management Journal (Sanders et al., 2021b), and one focusing on evidence from Asia in Asian-Pacific Journal of HR (Sanders et al., 2022). We call this stage “the development of the HR process research.” The third stage of HR process research can be seen as the “maturing of the HR process field,” which is reflected in growing meta-review and critical discussion of the body of work. For instance, in 2016, after winning the Academy of Management Review’s Decade Award, Ostroff and Bowen reflected on their HRM system strength model; Hewett et al. (2018) reviewed the growth of attributional perspectives in the HR process research; Wang et al. (2020) published a review on the “what,” “why,” and “how” of employees’ perceptions of HR practices; a handbook on HR process research brought together different perspectives (Sanders et al., 2021a, 2021b); and the first meta-analysis on perceived HRM system strength2 research was published (Bednall et al., 2022). The maturing of this body of work is reflected in a quote from Patrick Wright in the handbook on HR process research: “While the issues and debates around the content of HR practices have not ebbed, today more attention focuses on the processes through which these practices work.” While we discuss the important publications and events in the development and maturing stages of HR process research, we do not aim to provide a complete review of all the work related to this research but rather a helicopter view for scholars new to HR process research or more experienced researchers to take a step back. While the different streams of HR process research reviewed in the first part of our chapter are maturing, they still operate mainly in silos with limited interconnection. We argue that this is a missed opportunity in making progress in the field of HR process research. Therefore, in the second part of this chapter, we propose a process model which incorporates theories of HRM system strength and HR attributions, which dominate the HR process research (Sanders, 2022; Sanders et al., 2021a, 2021b), and focus on the core elements of the staged process model. In addition, one of the weaknesses of the research streams within the HR process research is an unanswered question about the universality of HR process models across organizational or national contexts (see Bednall et al., 2022; Farndale & Sanders, 2017; Sanders et al., 2021a, 2021b). Therefore, we consider these contingencies in our revised staged process model. In the final part of this chapter (Part 3), we discuss future research related to our revised staged proposed model and the practical implications of HR process research. Part I. The Start of HR Process Research In this chapter, we draw on three articles that have particularly influenced the theoretical basis of HR process research: (a) Wright and Nishii’s (2013) theoretical chapter “Variability within Organizations: Implications for Strategic Human Resource Management,” (b) Bowen and Ostroff’s (2004) theory paper “Understanding HRM-Firm Performance Linkages: The Role of the ‘Strength’ of the HRM System,” and (c) Nishii et al.’s (2008) conceptual and empirical paper, “Employee Attributions of the ‘why’ of HR practices: Their Effects on Employee Attitudes and Behavior.” In the following sections, we introduce these three papers and consider their impact on HR process research. Wright & Nishii’s HR Process Model Wright and Nishii’s (2013) process model of strategic HRM is inspired by the reflection that existing, content-based approaches did not adequately explain variation in the relationship between bundles of HR practices and organizational performance. They argue that variability within organizations provides important and interesting insights into the role of HR practices concerning individual-, group-, and organizational-level outcomes (see Fig. 1). The main argument in their process model is that the desired outcomes of HR practices as designed and adopted by management (referred to as intended HR practices) may be diluted, or changed, by the way that practices are implemented by managers (actual HR practices), which shapes how practices are perceived by employees. Opens in a new window.Fig. 1.The Process Model of SHRM (Adopted From Nishii & Wright, 2008, p. 7). There are three key implications of Wright and Nishii’s (2013) chapter. First, the HR practices intended by organizational decision-makers are filtered through line managers, who are responsible for “bringing practices to life” (Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007, p. 16; see also Guest, 2021). This can explain the variability between organizational units in how HR practices are experienced by groups of employees. The relationship between intended and actual HR practices is then moderated by factors such as line managers’ leadership style (Daniel, 1985), personalities and behaviors (Schneider & Reichers, 1983). Other moderating effects at the group level on the relationship between actual HR and employees’ perceptions include social interaction and common experiences among members of the group (James et al., 1988; Kozlowski & Hattrup, 1992). The second implication is that there is a difference between the HR system objectively stated in policies and procedures (HR content) and the subjective experience of the HR system by individuals or groups of employees. This draws on a core principle of psychological climate research (James et al., 1990; Schneider, 1987): it is people’s subjective perceptions that drive behavior rather than objective characteristics of the environment. When Nishii and Wright (2006) published their first working paper the small body of HR research which explicitly addressed employees’ perceptions of HR practices often confounded perceptions with objective characteristics rather than recognizing these as meaningfully different constructs. The third implication is that the way that employees perceive HR practices influences their attitudinal and behavioral responses to the practices. This draws on theories of social cognition, which suggest that employees attach different meanings to social stimuli based on the frameworks that they use to make sense of social information (Fiske & Taylor, 1991). It means that, even if employees perceive bundles of HR practices in their organization in a similar way, they will not always respond consistently. Individuals’ responses are shaped by their motivations (Locke & Latham, 1990), past experiences (Rousseau, 2001), demographic background (Cox, 1993), values (Judge & Bretz, 1992), and personalities (Hough & Schneider, 1996). Nishii and Wright (2008) therefore argue that it is important to understand the relationship between employees’ perceptions and their responses and to consider the factors which moderate this relationship when explaining the overarching relationship between bundles of HR practices and organizational performance. Bowen and Ostroff’s HRM System Strength In their Academy of Management Review paper and based on the work of Ferris et al. (1999), and their earlier chapter on multilevel research in organizations (Ostroff & Bowen, 2000), Bowen and Ostroff (2004) explain the process by which employees make sense of HR practices within an organization by drawing on the co-variation principle of Kelley’s (1967, 1973) attribution theory as their organizing framework. The co-variation principle suggests that, when people observe behaviors or events, they draw on multiple instances of the behavior or event across both time and situations to interpret its meaning. As such, they employ a co-variation principle to determine the cause of the behaviors or events based on three features: distinctiveness, consistency, and consensus. Distinctiveness refers to the extent to which the event or behavior “stands out” in its environment, thereby capturing the attention and arousing the interest of observers (Kelley, 1967, p. 102). Consistency refers to similarity across time and modality. If the behaviors or events are the same across situations, observers perceive the situation as consistent. Consensus is the similarity of behaviors across observers. If many observers perceive the situation in the same way, the consensus is high. The first implication of the HRM system strength model is that it provides a theoretically grounded explanation for “the features of an HR system that send signals to employees that allow them to understand the desired and appropriate responses and form a collective sense of what is expected” (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004, p. 204), which describes when and how individual perceptions of HR practices can be shared among employees. HRM system strength (the meta-features of distinctiveness, consistency, and consensus of the HR system) therefore explains how HR as a system “can contribute to organizational performance by motivating employees to adopt desired attitudes and behaviors that, in the collective, help to achieve the organization’s strategic goals” (p. 204). The second implication of this model is in providing a theoretical basis to examine the strength of the HRM system. Bowen and Ostroff (2004) used the three meta-features of distinctiveness, consistency, and consensus as an organizing framework for nine specific characteristics relevant to the HR system. Distinctiveness comprises visibility, understandability of HR practices, the relevance of HR practices to strategic and individual goal achievement, and legitimacy of the authority of the HR function. Consistency includes instrumentality by establishing an unambiguous perceived cause-effect relationship between the HRM system’s desired content-focused behaviors and associated employee consequences; validity, in terms of consistency between the intentions and the reality of the practice and alignment (vertical and horizontal); and stability over time. Consensus is composed of agreement among message senders and fairness of practices. These features and meta-features work in concert to deliver HR messages. Based on the co-variation model of attribution theory (Kelley, 1967, 1973), when employees perceive HR as highly distinctive, highly consistent, and highly consensual, they attribute HR to the entity (management as representatives of the organization) so they understand what is expected from them (see also Sanders & Yang, 2016). Finally, HRM system strength needs to be interpreted as a collective process; an indication of the psychological climate relating to the HR system. This collective process explains the emergence of a shared understanding of what is valued, expected, and rewarded in the organization. Bowen and Ostroff (2004) argue that organizational climate only emerges from individual perceptions of HR practices when HRM system strength is high (i.e., when employees perceive HR practices as distinctive, consistent, and consensual) because a strong system ensures shared perceptions. Conversely, when HRM system strength is low, individual perceptions of HR practices (psychological climate) tend to be idiosyncratic. Furthermore, a strong organizational climate will influence employees’ attitudes and behaviors in a positive way as it is clear to employees what to do. Nishii et al.’s HR Attributions Nishii et al.’s (2008) model of HR attributions explains how the relationship between bundles of HR practices and organizational performance-related outcomes is filtered through employees’ beliefs about the intentions of their organization when designing and implementing HR practices. Their model draws on Heider (1958) and Weiner’s (1979, 1985a, 1985b, 1986, 2008, 2018) theories of causal attribution, which suggest that individuals form explanations (attributions) for their own behavior and the behavior of others to enhance their ability to understand, predict, and control their environment (Wong & Weiner, 1981). A key dimension of Heider’s (1985, 1986) attribution theory is the locus of causality, which concerns whether an individual considers the cause of behavior or an event to be internal (i.e., generated by the person) or external (i.e., generated by the situation). Drawing on this principle, Koys (1988) was the first to argue that employees can make an internal attribution if HR activities appear to be freely chosen by the organization (“out of a spirit of justice” or “to attract and retain employees”) rather than forced by external pressures (“encourage individual or organizational performance” or “to comply with government relations”). The empirical results of Koys’ exploratory research indicate that, while internal explanations are positively related to employees’ commitment, external explanations are not. Nishii et al. (2008) built on the work of Koys (1988) to propose a more systematic model of HR attributions. They define HR attributions as the beliefs that employees form about the intentions of management to design and implement HR practices. On the one hand, employees may believe that an HR practice is designed to comply with external factors such as trade union pressure. On the other hand, internal attributions are the beliefs that the actions of the organization are due to factors over which management has control. Nishii et al. (2008) argue that internal attributions are more complex than external attributions and, therefore, organize internal attributions along two dimensions: (1) the extent to which the (internal) attributions represent business goals versus employee-oriented goals underlying HR practices (based on research from the likes of Lepak et al., 2002; Osterman, 1994); and (2) whether a practice is designed to engender commitment or enforce control, which is based on a distinction highlighted by Arthur (1994). By crossing these two dimensions, Nishii et al. (2008) identify four types of internal HR attributions: service quality, employee wellbeing, cost reduction, and employee exploitation. Using data from 4,500 employees and 1,100 department managers from a service firm, Nishii et al. (2008) found support for their theory that employees make varying attributions for the same HR practice. Their results indicate that these HR attributions are differentially associated with employee commitment and satisfaction. Specifically, the attributions that HR practices motivated by an organization’s concern for enhancing service quality or employee wellbeing (commitment attributions) are positively related to employee commitment and satisfaction whereas attributions focused on reducing costs and exploiting employees (control attributions) are negatively associated with these attitudes. External attributions involving union compliance were not significantly related to these theoretical outcomes. They further found that these attitudinal outcomes were related to different dimensions of employee organization citizenship behaviors, which were in turn related to customer satisfaction at the group level. The HR attributions model contributes, first, to our understanding of variability in individuals’ responses to the same HR practices. By drawing on principles of attribution theory from social psychology (e.g., Heider, 1958; Weiner, 1985a, 1985b), the HR attributions model provides a theoretically grounded explanation for variability at the individual level. As the role of attributions in social life is well-established – both theoretically and empirically – it provided a much-needed organizing framework for the growing body of work on employee perceptions of HR practices. Second, the dimensional structure of Nishii et al.’s (2008) model provides a generalizable model to understand how bundles of HR practices, or individual HR practices, are interpreted by employees and the implications of this interpretation for outcomes at the individual, group, and organizational level. This model also offers a springboard for research to examine how these attributions are shaped by stimuli from the environment around employees (e.g., their manager, colleagues, and communication processes) and employees’ internal schema (e.g., personality, prior experiences, and values). The Development of HR Process Research The three papers introduced in the previous section (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004; Nishii et al., 2008; Wright & Nishii, 2013) provided fuel for the fire for the new sub-field of strategic HRM research and have inspired scholars to dig further into the “black box” between (bundles of) HR practices and performance. The process model provides a broader guiding framework on which the HRM system strength and HR attributions theories elaborate. Despite the fact that these seminal papers are highly cited in the (HR) management literature, the number of empirical studies that tested the different models are relatively low. For instance, Bowen and Ostroff’s paper (2004) is cited 1,711 times (Web of Science, January 2023) yet the meta-analysis of Bednall et al. (2021) reported 42 empirical papers on this topic; Nishii et al. (2008) is cited 766 times (Web of Science, January 2023) but in her review of the HR attribution research, Hewett (2021) found 17 empirical papers and, applying slightly different parameters, Hu and Oh (2022) identified 34 empirical papers that tested Nishii et al.’s model. Empirical Shift: From Content to Process In 2014, the first special issue on HR process research, entitled “Is the HRM Process Important?” was published (Sanders et al., 2014). In their editorial, Sanders et al. (2014) content analyzed all submissions for the special issue and concluded that they all examined perceptions of and attributions about HRM. Even when HRM practices seem to be central in the article, the authors were mainly focused on the perceptions that employees hold about such practices. This indicated that the process view of HRM at that time was strongly built on the intermediate and/or direct role of employees’ attributions and perceptions of their organization. This special issue on the HR process research contained articles from two research streams: the process model (Nishii & Wright, 2008; Wright & Nishii, 2013) and HRM system strength (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). While work on HR attributions is mentioned in the introduction of the special issue, no articles in this special issue focused on this research stream, which was slower to take off (Hewett et al., 2018). Reflective of a shift in theory from the content of HR systems to the process between practices and organizational performance, most of the articles in the 2014 special issue contained both perspectives. For example. Aksoy and Bayazit (2014) adopted Bowen and Ostroff’s (2004) HRM system strength model and tested it within the context of a management-by-objectives (MBO) system. Sumelius et al. (2014) likewise brought together the content and process perspective to address the question “What determines employee perceptions of HRM process features?” Their study aimed to explore influences on employee perceptions of the visibility, validity, procedural, and distributive justice of performance appraisal in subsidiaries of multinational corporations and at what levels these influences reside. Katou et al. (2014) investigated the impact of an HRM system (integrating both the content and process of HR practices) on organizational performance through collective employee reactions. Finally, Piening et al. (2014) focused on empirically examining the gap between intended and implemented HR practices, drawing on the work of Wright and Nishii (2013). From HRM System Strength to Perceived HRM System Strength One trend which is evident in the early years after the publication of Bowen and Ostroff’s (2004) article is a shift regarding the level of analysis from organizational climate (shared perceptions), which was the focus of their theory, to individual perceptions of the meta-features of HRM system strength (distinctiveness, consistency, and consensus), as discussed by Ostroff and Bowen (2016). Sanders et al. (2008) were one of the first to test the HRM system strength framework, in a study among employees, line managers, and HR managers working in four hospitals in the Netherlands. They examined distinctiveness, consistency and consensus as the main effects, and shared perceptions of high-commitment HRM (organizational climate) as a mediator in the relationship between HRM system strength and affective commitment. They found that organizational climate did not mediate the relationship between HRM system strength and affective commitment as expected; instead, organizational climate moderated the relationship between individual perceptions of consistency and affective commitment. This study was replicated by Li et al. (2011), who examined how individual perceptions of HRM system strength and organizational climate were associated with hotel employees’ work satisfaction, vigor, and intention to quit in the Chinese context. The distinctiveness of HRM system strength was found to be related to the three employee work attitudes. In addition, they found that organizational climate strengthened the positive relationship between consensus and work satisfaction and the negative relationship between consensus and intention to quit. Similarly, Aksoy and Bayazit (2014) included both (the shared perceptions of) HRM system strength and organizational climate in their research and found that HRM system strength was related to organizational climate. Other studies examined the effects of perceived HRM system strength on the individual level (Bednall & Sanders, 2017; Bednall et al., 2014, 2017; Frenkel et al., 2012a, 2012b, 2013; Frenkel & Yu, 2011). This theoretical shift from climate to perceptions is also reflected in the measurement of perceived HRM system strength. Independently, teams from Belgium (Delmotte et al., 2012) and Portugal (Coelho et al., 2012) conducted several studies to develop measurements of perceptions of HRM system strength. Although these measures contain some similarities they also highlight differences. While Delmotte et al. (2012) found more than nine features in their factor structure, Coelho et al. (2012) found only one. In a later meta-analysis, Bednall et al. (2022) found that the most frequently used scale to measure perceived HRM system strength is that of Delmotte et al. (2012). Together, this body of work highlights a theoretical and empirical shift toward individual perceptions of the strength of the HR system. Empirical Development of the HR Attributions Model Despite the slow start most of the more recent empirical research on the HR process has been based on Nishii et al.’s (2008) model (Hewett et al., 2018). Much of the early research inspired by Nishii et al.’s study represents a replication of their model with differential outcomes and serves to elaborate the nomological net of HR attributions (Hewett, 2021). For example, multiple studies have found that commitment (service quality and employee wellbeing) attributions are positively related to affective commitment (Fontinha et al., 2012; Khan & Tang, 2016; Van De Voorde & Beijer, 2015), job satisfaction (Tandung, 2016; Valizade et al., 2016), performance-related outcomes (Chen & Wang, 2014; Yang & Arthur, 2019) and negatively related to intention to quit (Lee et al., 2019), thus supporting the findings of Nishii et al. (2008). Additionally, control (cost reduction and employee exploitation) attributions have been related to stress-related outcomes such as work overload, emotional exhaustion, and burnout (Shantz et al., 2016; Van De Voorde & Beijer, 2015; Wang et al., 2020). A smaller number of studies examined theoretical antecedents to HR attributions, in particular high-performance work practices (HPWPs; Van De Voorde & Beijer, 2015; Sanders et al., 2021a, 2021b). For example, Van de Voorde and Beijer (2015) found that the presence of HPWPs, as ra
In this chapter, the authors examined expatriates that self-initiate their international work for personal reasons and the factors that affect their departure from an organization. The authors conducted a systematic review of self-initiated expatriation (SIE) and its definitions in order to propose an integrated definition of SIE and model its nomological network. In addition, the authors construct a roadmap for future research directions in the SIE domain. Finally, using a qualitative research design, the authors studied the organizational practices designed to reduce SIE turnover in an exemplary multinational organization. Overall, our contributions are enhanced clarity of the SIE construct and the theorized practice of SIE retention.
Work-life flexibility policies (e.g., flextime, telework, part-time, right-to-disconnect, and leaves) are increasingly important to employers as productivity and well-being strategies. However, policies have not lived up to their potential. In this chapter, the authors argue for increased research attention to implementation and work-life intersectionality considerations influencing effectiveness. Drawing on a typology that conceptualizes flexibility policies as offering employees control across five dimensions of the work role boundary (temporal, spatial, size, permeability, and continuity), the authors develop a model identifying the multilevel moderators and mechanisms of boundary control shaping relationships between using flexibility and work and home performance. Next, the authors review this model with an intersectional lens. The authors direct scholars' attention to growing workforce diversity and increased variation in flexibility policy experiences, particularly for individuals with higher work-life intersectionality, which is defined as having multiple intersecting identities (e.g., gender, caregiving, and race), that are stigmatized, and link to having less access to and/or benefits from societal resources to support managing the work-life interface in a social context. Such an intersectional focus would address the important need to shift work-life and flexibility research from variable to person-centered approaches. The authors identify six research considerations on work-life intersectionality in order to illuminate how traditionally assumed work-life relationships need to be revisited to address growing variation in: access, needs, and preferences for work-life flexibility; work and nonwork experiences; and benefits from using flexibility policies. The authors hope that this chapter will spur a conversation on how the work-life interface and flexibility policy processes and outcomes may increasingly differ for individuals with higher work-life intersectionality compared to those with lower work-life intersectionality in the context of organizational and social systems that may perpetuate growing work-life and job inequality.
This volume, written by thought leaders in the field of human resources management, focuses on human resources branding, innovation and creativity in HRM, high involvement work systems, work home boundary permeability, the emerging concept of grit, and data visualization issues in human resources management.
The increasing prevalence and availability of big data represent a potentially revolutionary development for human resource management (HRM) scholars. Despite this, the current literature provides eclectic and often contradictory guidance for scholars attempting to conceptualize big data and subsequently incorporate it into relevant theoretical frameworks. The authors attempt to bridge this gap by discussing key considerations relevant to understanding and integrating big data into the existing theoretical landscape. Building on a novel, integrative definition of big data, the authors propose a parsimonious theoretical framework utilizing the established dimensions of complexity and dynamism as meta-attributes to bring order to the various attributes that have been proposed as central to defining big data (e.g., volume, variety, velocity, and variability). Throughout, the authors highlight numerous theoretical and empirical opportunities and considerations that this perspective holds for future HRM scholarship.
Organizational researchers studying well-being – as well as organizations themselves – often place much of the burden on employees to manage and preserve their own well-being. Missing from this discussion is how – from a human resources management (HRM) perspective – organizations and managers can directly and positively shape the well-being of their employees. The authors use this review to paint a picture of what organizations could be like if they valued people holistically and embraced the full experience of employees’ lives to promote well-being at work. In so doing, the authors tackle five challenges that managers may have to help their employees navigate, but to date have received more limited empirical and theoretical attention from an HRM perspective: (1) recovery at work; (2) women’s health; (3) concealable stigmas; (4) caregiving; and (5) coping with socio-environmental jolts. In each section, the authors highlight how past research has treated managerial or organizational support on these topics, and pave the way for where research needs to advance from an HRM perspective. The authors conclude with ideas for tackling these issues methodologically and analytically, highlighting ways to recruit and support more vulnerable samples that are encapsulated within these topics, as well as analytic approaches to study employee experiences more holistically. In sum, this review represents a call for organizations to now – more than ever – build thriving organizations.
Organizations are reaching beyond typical firm boundaries to achieve competitive advantage. Human resource (HR) systems must simultaneously support alignment across the business ecosystem while acknowledging the benefits of disruption. The authors provide a fresh perspective on strategic HR management (SHRM), expanding the view beyond organizations to look at the ecosystem as a whole. The authors address the need for HR systems to balance the dualistic tensions of alignment and disruption. While examining the environmental logic of the ecosystem, the authors provide examples of disruption through competition and alignment through cooperation. The authors then examine potential research implications that could assist managers as they govern in a constantly changing and complex ecosystem. This chapter presents the HR ecosystem framework which provides a clear discussion of how different governance mechanisms might be utilized to help firms achieve a competitive advantage through the balance between alignment and disruption.
When a firm implements certain HR practices, different employees attribute different motives and intentions to the firm with regards to those HR practices. Research on HR attributions has made progress toward understanding the relationship between HR practices and employee outcomes from a process perspective. However, this research is still fragmented and lacks a systematic typology of the different types of HR attributions and a compelling organizing research framework. Furthermore, a number of research gaps and opportunities have emerged regarding the nomological net of employee HR attributions. To address the gaps and capitalize on the opportunities, we propose an overarching theory-driven multi-level framework that guides the choice of the antecedents and outcomes of employee HR attributions and explains their relationships along with both mediating and moderating mechanisms. Drawing on signaling theory embedded in our proposed framework, we identify and categorize various antecedents of employee HR attributions to explain their relationships. We also use several additional theories such as social exchange and the job demands-resources model included in our review to identify and categorize various outcomes of employee HR attributions across levels of analysis (i.e., individual, collective [team/group/unit], organization) and explain their relationships. In addition, our proposed framework explains how individual-level employee HR attributions emerge at the collective level and influence collective processes and outcomes. We end our review by pinpointing future research needs and discussing related future research directions.
