david guest presentation 2013 conference

8/10/2019 David Guest Presentation 2013 Conference

1/59

Current Developments in Theory and

Research on Human Resource Management

David Guest

Professor of Organizational Psychology and

Human Resource ManagementKings College, London


2/59

Aims of presentation

Review progress

Point to areas needing development

Set some research agendas

Start with definition of HRM


3/59

What is Human Resource Management?

All those activities associated with the management ofwork and people in organizations

(Boxall and Purcell, 2011)

HRM is concerned with a set of practices and theirapplication and can be viewed as a system formanagement of people at work

All organizations need HRM; but HRM is only likely to betaken seriously if it can demonstrate impact. This is whythe link between HRM and outcomes is so important.


4/59

The Good News: Impressive Progress

After 25 years of contemporary research and writing, we are muchmore knowledgeable about HRM:

Strong evidence of a link between HRM and performance

Advances in understanding role of external fit

Advances in understanding internal fit

Recognition that HRM operates as some kind of system

Evidence that HRM can have a positive link with employee well-being

Advances in understanding linkages between HRM andperformance and determinants of effective implementation

Adoption of multi-level models of analysis and sophisticatedresearch methodology

BUTstill a lot of unanswered questions


5/59

Recognise the Challenges of a Maturing Field:

Stages in the Development of HRM Research

The promise of HRM and mapping the field: concern forstrategy and commitment

Early empiricism: demonstration of link between HRM andperformanceHuselid, MacDuffie, Arthur etc.

Backlash: conceptual critique (Legge, Keenoy); empiricalcritique (Dyer & Reeves, Becker & Gerhart)

Conceptual refinement: AMO model: resource-based view;Institutional perspective

Focus on worker: employee accounts of HRM and employeeattitudes and behaviour as central to impact

Growing sophistication: complex models and multi-levelanalysis


6/59

Research Challenges

Defining the nature of HRM and measuring it

Defining performance and other outcomes and

measuring them

Theorising and operationalising the process whereby

HRM and outcomes (performance) might be linked

Establishing the evidence


7/59

The First Research Challenge

Defining Human Resource Management and

Measuring It

Link between external and internal fit

Deciding on the particular model of HRM

Determining sources of information


8/59

Linking Strategy and HRM(Schuler and Jackson, 1987)

Company mission and values

Competitive strategy

Required employees and employee behaviours

HR practices aligned to requirements

Employee behaviour aligned with strategic goals


9/59

Clarifying HRM Systems

Much contemporary research and writing is trying to describe

human resource systems

Special issue of Human Resource Management Review (Vol

22: Issue 1) addresses this.

Posthuma et al (2013) in JoM offer an empirical taxonomy,

sorting 61 practices into 9 categories

But all are operating within a high performance work systems

paradigm


10/59

Nature of HRM: Alternative Models

Dominance of concept of HPWSa misnomer. Needalternatives that recognise range of stakeholders in outcomes

High commitment HRM

High involvement HRM

High partnership HRM

And their opposites; so commitment vs compliance (control inWalton)

Boxall and Macky 2009 distinguish focus on work practices

from focus on employment practices; show their link andargue for neglect of many aspects of employment in HPWS

Cultural factors European and Australian legislation requirescertain employment practices


11/59

High Performance Work Systems (HPWS) HRM

Focus on human capital and mechanisms for leveraging it to

enhance performance: neglects employee outcomes

Note weakness of measures of human capital and neglect of

much of HRM

Tendency to focus on incentives as motivators and controls

Meta-analyses show:

Human capital considered alone has an association with financial

performance (Crook et al)

Human capital and incentive based motivation combine additively to

affect performance (Jiang et al)

Limited attention paid to Contribution dimension because often

neglected in research


12/59

High Commitment HRM

Recruitment & selection

Training & Development

Opportunity to

participate

Employee

motivation

Employee

competence

Job design

Involvement systems

Communication

Performance appraisalFinancial rewards

Feedback

Employee

commitment

Internal promotion

Security

Fair treatment

Met psych. contract

Higher employee

performance

and

Higher employeewell-being


13/59

High Involvement Work System

Business Practices

Work design

Incentive practices

Flexibility

Training

Goal-setting

High Involvement

Work Processes

Power

Information

Reward

Knowledge

Workforce

Psychological

Adjustment

Organizational

commitment

Job satisfaction

Intention to quit

Organization

Effectiveness

Turnover

Return on

Equity


14/59

Partnership HRM

Stakeholder approach, recognising the need to accommodate

different interests

Focuses on both high performance and high well-being

Can accommodate a wider range of HRM: both work

organisation and traditional personnel that is neglected in

other models (the fairness agenda)

Evidence consistently suggests direct participation through

autonomy/job design works well but best of all when

combined with representative participation

Close to Nordic/Germanic European model


15/59

Approaches to the

Measurement of HRM

Individual practices

Bundles of practicesideally theory-based

Interactions of bundles (and with strategy)

Count of HR practices in place: choice of presence of practice;extent of coverage; application to key employee group

Effectiveness/implementation of HR practices

Question of who provides the informationideally multiple

respondents Choice depends on theoretical perspective but note that a key

feature of HRM is the system concept


16/59

The Second Research Challenge:

Measuring Outcomes

Focus has been mainly on performance

In the case of performance, need to distinguish

proximal and distal outcomes

Need to broaden to consider a stakeholder

perspective


17/59

Approaches to the Measurement of

Performance

Standard performance indicators: financial,

productivity quits etcboth proximal and distal

Goal-based perspectivesmanage a merger

Resource acquisition modelsunions and

universities

Bench-marking and ratiospopular but limited Process models; effectiveness of policies

Stakeholder perspectivessubjective outcomes


18/59

What Outcomes do Workers Want?

Job satisfaction Work-related well-being Work-life balance Adequate and fair rewards Good employment relations High quality of working life Health Life satisfaction

Raises the question of what employers are obliged toprovidewhat is the psychological contract?


19/59

The Third Research Challenge

Understanding and Exploring the

Implementation of HRM

Extent of implementation

Influences on implementation

Key actors in implementation


20/59

Exploring the Linkages: HRM and the Role

of Employee Responses

Backgroundfactors

SectorSize

Ownership

Strategy

Humanresourcepractices

HR practices

Employmentrelationspracticesand climate

Employeeattitudes andbehaviour

JobsatisfactionOrganizationalcommitmentMotivationOCB

Individualperformance

Internalperformance

indicators

Productivity

Quality ofgoods andservices

Labour

turnoverAbsence

Accidents

Externalperformance

indicators

Sales

Financialperformance


21/59

HRM Practices at Company Level in the

UK: Counting the Practices

Key HR Practices

14131211109876543210

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Number of HR

practices in UKcompanies

(N=610)

FofW data


22/59

Why the Low Adoption of Practices?(Guest and King, 2004)

Not aware of the evidence/message

Dont believe the message

Dont believe it is relevant to them

Already do it all/do enough

More important priorities

Sceptical of HR fad and fashions and gurus Dont know how to implement high commitment

HR/where to start


23/59

The Implementation Challenge

Khilji and Wang (2006) highlighted a gap between

intended and implemented practices

Implies that it is not enough to have good HR policy

and practice Guest & Conway (2011) show that

implementation/effectiveness is more strongly

associated with performance than HR practices

Draws attention to the roles of HR specialists, top

management and line managers


24/59

A Case Study of Implementation

Specific case of practices versus

implementation

Context of healthcare in the UK

Levels of reported bullying and harassment of

staff by staff higher than in most other sectors

Considerable pressure to reduce reported

levels


25/59

A Process Theory of HR Implementation

Stage 1: Decide to introduce a practice

Stage 2: Determine the quality of the practice

Stage 3: Line managers agree to implement the

practice Stage 4: Line managers implement in a quality

way

Stage 5: Staff accept rationale for practice and

respond appropriately Stage 3-5 cannot occur without 1 and 2

Board/HR responsible for 1-2: line for 3-5?


26/59

Definitions of Bullying and Harassment

Harassment

Unwelcome words, actions, or physical contact that frightens,

intimidates or otherwise discomforts another person. Can

involve an isolated incident.

Bullying

Harassing, offending, socially excluding someone or negatively

affecting someones work tasks. Must occur repeatedly over a

period.

NHS Staff Survey

In the past 12 months, have you personally experienced

harassment, bullying or abuse at work?


27/59

Bullying and Harassment in the UKHealthcare. Regional Comparisons

16.2 17.2 17.317.7 17.8 17.9 18.0 18.0

18.4

21.6

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

North

East

West

Midlands

North

West

Yorkshire

and the

Humber

East of

England

South

Central

South

West

East

Midlands

South

East

Coast

London

%S

atffreportingB&H


28/59

Bullying and Harassment at a London

Acute Hospital 2004-2008

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

%r

eportingB&H

Host organisation

National Acute trust average


29/59

Bullying and Harassment by Care Group in

the Hospital

11

13

20

2426

2729 29

3335

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Corporate &

Facilities

Specialist

Medicine

Clinical Services Cardiac &

Neurosciences

Finance Women's &

Children's

Dental Liver & Renal Critical & Surgery M edical Care

Care Group

%R

eportingB&H


30/59

Evidence on Bullying from Staff Surveys

and Interviews

Bullying associated with increased stress /reducedjob satisfaction/higher intention to quit

Bullying affects PSSQ through reduced motivationand concern to do a good job

Bullying by staff associated with unsupportive workenvironment and lack of faith in effectiveness ofrelevant HR systems

How does this relate to HR policy and practice in thehospital?


31/59

Best Practice in Management of Bullying

Implementation of a Formal Bullying Policy

Zero Tolerance Approach

Selection of Staff

Implementation of Awareness Campaigns Address Environmental Problems

Training and Development for Managers and for Staff

Providing Informal Advisory Services

Data monitoring

Support for Victims of Bullying

All are in place at this hospital


32/59

Implications for HRM

The hospital has all the right policies and practices in

place but B&H still very high. Why?

Clear gap between intended and implemented

practice In this context, seemingly good HR can get bad

results because of a poor implementation climate

Implementation may be particularly challenging in

public sector professional bureaucracies

Implies need to focus in implementation on roles of

key actorsline, senior and HR management


33/59

The Boundaries of HR Functional Responsibility

What can the HR function be expected to contribute?

The function has the promise of exerting distinctive influence throughthree main routes

Through the Ulrich model of structure and function Through promoting the link between HR and performance

Through the traditional role of ensuring fair treatment

The evidence suggests that the HR function has failed on all three

counts, partly because of problems of implementation

As a result, it is unrealistic to expect a major independent HRcontribution. The HR function cannot do it on its own.


34/59

Adoption of the Ulrich Model in the UK

CIPD survey: responses from 787 out of 12,000 senior HR

figures

53% have re-structured HR roles in the previous year

81% have re-structured in the past five years

Of those who have re-structured, over half say their current

structure fully or partly reflects the Ulrich model

In practice, only 18% have all three elements in place

Restructuring of the function continues at the same pace(Kings Speechly Bircham survey). No consensus on the right

structure.


35/59

Evaluating the Ulrich Framework:Evidence from the CIPD/IES Survey

No evidence that organisations using the full model

report better performance

Some indication that those concentrating on the useof business partners have poorer performance

Issues of cause and effect; are poorer performingorganisations more likely to adopt a new model?


36/59

Are HR Managers HR Champions and

HR Innovators?

Analysis of 25 years of WERS (Guest and Bryson) reveals:

No association between presence of a specialist role and

greater use of innovative HR practices

No association between presence of qualified HR

specialist and greater adoption of innovative HR practices

Association between adoption of innovative HR practices

and ratings of workplace performance

No association between presence of HR specialist and

workplace performance

HR managers are still not championing innovative HR


37/59

Kochans (2007) USA Evaluation

The human resource management profession faces a

crisis of trust and a loss of legitimacy in the eyes of

its major stakeholders. The two-decade effort to

develop a new strategic human resourcemanagement role in organizations has failed to

realize its promised potential of greater status,

influence and achievement (p.599.


38/59

The Challenge of Implementation:

The Role of Line Managers

Consistent gap between intended andimplemented practices (Khilji and Wang) points tofailures by line managers

UK research suggests line managers

are neither capable nor motivated to take on these(HR) issues (Hope Hailey et al)

Dutch evidence more positive about line managers;

main challenge is pressure of time Line management role illustrated by case of bullying

and harassment in NHS hospitals


39/59

The Challenge of Implementation and the Role

of A Strong HR System

Bowen and Ostroff (2004): implementation a function of the

strength of the HR system:

High consensus; agreement among key stakeholders; fairness of HRsystems

High distinctiveness: visible, legitimate, relevant and understandable

High consistency: consistent, integrated HR policy and practice,instrumental for goal achievement

Some provisional testing (Stanton et al, 2010) but highly and

imprecise complex model

Role of top management likely to be crucial


40/59

Developing Linkage Research

HRM PROXIMAL

BEHAVIOURAMO

FINANCIAL

PERFORMANCE

Individual

differencesAttribution

Strategy Climate

Implementation

Leadership

Role of HR Function Role of Line


41/59

The Fourth Challenge

Establishing the Evidence

Ideally longitudinal multi-level, multi-respondent Most research is cross-sectional

Varied measures, especially of HRM, challenge theaccumulation of evidence

Need to differentiate outcomes

Key challenge it mutual gains versus transaction/exploitation


42/59

HRM and Performance:

The Starting Point: The Simple Model

HRM Organizational Performance


43/59

HR Practices and Profit per Employee in

the UK Private Sector

Source: FoW (N=297)

Num ber of HR practices

11+8 to 105 to 70 to 4

4000

3000

2000

1000


44/59

HR Practices and Labour Turnover

HR practices (UK)

11+8 to 105 to 70 to 4

40

30

20

10


45/59

HRM and Performance: Reviewing the

Evidence

Around 1995, a series of studies appeared all showing anassociation between a combination of HR practices andworkplace or organizational performance Huselid (1995)top US organizations

Arthurs (1994); Ichniowski et al (1994) - strip steel mills

Delery and Doty (1996) - banks MacDuffie (1995) - auto industry

A decade later, major reviews confirmed an association acrossmany studies

Boselie, Dietz and Boon (2005) Combs, Liu, Hall and Ketchen (2006)

Also highlighted research challenges and issue of causality


46/59

Bringing Employees Centre-Stage

Linkage model confirms that HRM has its

impact on performance through the way it

affects employee attitudes and behaviour.

So if employees like experiencing HRM and

respond positively to it, we may get happy

productive workers


47/59

Work-Related Well-Being 1

Grant, Christianson and Price (2007) suggest well-being hasthree dimensions in workplace settings:

Health: includes physical well-being, health and safety

Happiness: includes job satisfaction, contentment,enthusiasm/engagement

Relationships: fairness, trust , openness, friendship, freedomfrom bullying and harassment

Most of the research on HRM and well-being focuses onhappiness


48/59

Work-Related Well-Being 2

Warr views employee well-being in terms of positive mental health:

Warrs(2007) model has three dimensions

Job satisfaction - Dissatisfaction(Pleasure) (Displeasure)

Contentment - Anxiety

Enthusiasm - Depression

Satisfaction is a component of well-being


49/59

HRM and Well-Being: Evidence from the

Psycones Study

Seven country, three sector European study with 1981temporary workers and 3307 permanent workers from over200 organizations

Obtained measures of HRM practices from managers and

employees and standard measures of well-being fromworkers.

Key finding: temporary workers report higher well-being thanpermanent workers

Also explored factors associated with well-being includingHRM (though both self-report here)

HRM & W k R l d W ll b i


50/59

HRM & Work-Related Well-being

1.7

1.9

2.1

2.3

2.5

2.7

2.9

3.1

AnxietyLow HRM High HRM

1.7

1.9

2.1

2.3

2.5

2.7

2.9

3.1

Irritation

Low HRM High HRM

1.7

1.9

2.1

2.3

2.5

2.7

2.9

3.1

Depression

Low HRM High HRM


51/59

HRM and Work Attitudes

3.3

3.5

3.7

3.9

4.1

4.3

Org' Commitment

Low HRM High HRM

1.3

1.5

1.7

1.9

2.1

2.3

Intention to Quit

Low HRM High HRM

3.3

3.5

3.7

3.9

4.1

4.3

Self-rated Performance

Low HRM High HRM


52/59

HRM and Health and Satisfaction

3.3

3.5

3.7

3.9

4.1

4.3

General Health

Low HRM High HRM

3.3

3.5

3.7

3.9

4.1

4.3

Job Satisfaction

Low HRM High HRM

3.3

3.5

3.7

3.9

4.1

4.3

Life Satisfaction

Low HRM High HRM


53/59

The Exploitation Issue: Does HRM Lead to

Worker Exploitation or Work Engagement?

The Low Road CritiqueHRM as exploitation, leading to intensification ofwork and increased stress Focus on performance (high performance work systems) to neglect of

employees concerns

Some evidence of work intensification/stress: the Godard critiquetoo muchHRM is bad for workers

The High Road Argument HRM offers mutual gains: HR can enhance commitment, satisfaction, and well-

being as well as performance

Jensen et al (2013) highlight key role of job control in limiting negative

employee outcomes Put simply, workers prefer to be in interesting jobs, to be well managed and

fairly treated and, within an exchange framework, will respond with higherperformance

HRM d W ll B i Th Wid S


54/59

HRM and Well-Being: The Wider Survey

Evidence

Few studies exploring HRM and both performance and well-being (due tobias for performance)

Review* exploring the mutual gains hypothesis distinguished happiness(21 studies) from health (6 studies)

Most happiness studies report an association between HRM,

satisfaction/commitment and performance. Most studies of health show no clear association with HRM; two are

negative, showing higher performance and higher stress

Reviews fail to distinguish type of HRM

Responses depend on source of information about HRM; workersaccounts show positive happiness and health outcomes

* Peccei, Van De Voorde and van Veldhoven* In Paauwe, Guest & Wright (2013): HRM and Performance:Achievements and Challenges (Wiley).


55/59

Mutual Gains or Exploitation: An Assessment

The rationale for a mutual gains approach is that everyone

wins and it is ethical. Counter is that it is costly

Offers a strong case for a stakeholder perspective

Much research ignores employees except as means to high

performance. Reflects a USA vs. Europe (and Australia?)

perspective

Case against mutual gains may be based on narrow view of

HRM (HPWS)

Autonomy can be associated with stress through high

involvement

Key question of causality remain unaddressed


56/59

Summary: The Contemporary Research Agenda

Start by celebrating progress

Avoid complexification as reflected in ever more complexmodels, the call for often unrealistic multi-level longitudinalstudies and use of ever more complex statistical analysis

Compare different HRM systems

Study origins of/changes in HRMwhy they occur, who drivesthem and what their impact is

Study contingent factors in implementation and role of actors

Broaden outcomes to incorporate a stakeholder perspective Adopt an ethical research perspective that focuses on good

HRM and mutual gains


57/59

Thank you

For

Listening

[email protected]


58/59

Some References

Boxall, P. & Macky, K. (2009). Research and theory on high-performance worksystems: progressing the high involvement stream. Human ResourceManagement Journal, 19: 3-23.

Crook, T.R. et al (2011). Does human capital matter? A meta-analysis of therelationship between human capital and firm performance. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 96: 443-56.

Godard, J. (2004). A critical assessment of the high-performance paradigm.British Journal of Industrial Relations, 42: 249-78.

Jensen, J. et al (2013). High performance work systems and job control:Consequences for anxiety, role overload and turnover intentions.Journal ofManagement, 39: 1699-1724.

Kaufman, B. (2012). Strategic human resource management research in theUnited States: A failing grade after 30 years?Academy of Management

Perspectives, 26: 12-36.Posthuma, R. et al (2013). A high performance work practices taxonomy

Journal of Management, 39: 1184-1220.


59/59

david guest presentation 2013 conference

Documents