Subjective measures of company performance are widely used in research and typically are interpreted as equivalent to objective measures. Yet, the assumption of equivalence is open to challenge. We compared the use of both types of measure in 3 separate samples. Findings were consistent in showing that: (a) subjective and objective measures of company performance were positively associated (convergent validity); (b) those relationships were stronger than those between measures of differing aspects of performance using the same method (discriminant validity); and (c) the relationships of subjective and objective company performance measures with a range of independent variables were equivalent (construct validity).

The relationship between HRM and performance was explored in 366 UK companies using objective and subjective performance measures and cross-sectional and longitudinal data. Using objective measures of performance, greater use of HRM is associated with lower labour turnover and higher profit per employee but not higher productivity. After controlling for previous years' performance, the association ceases to be significant. Using subjective performance estimates, there is a strong association between HRM and both productivity and financial performance. The study therefore confirms the association between HRM and performance but fails to show that HRM causes higher performance.

This article examines human resource management (HRM) practices in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). In particular, by examining the issue of causal order, it addresses a significant gap in the extant HRM–performance literature within the context of such firms. Significant simultaneous and longitudinal relationships between HRM practices and specific performance indicators are found. Controlling for past performance and thus, testing for the potential for reverse causality does not eliminate the significant relationship between human resource practices and performance. In sum, the use of human resource practices is found to positively enhance sustained competitive advantage. By explicitly examining the issue of causality in the human resources –performance relationship, this article makes a contribution to both the human resource and SME literatures.

This paper contributes to the strategic human resource management literature by testing the three main approaches -the universalistic ('best practice'), contingency and configurational -against an original database. Specifically, we examine: (1) the relationship between HR and firm performance, (2) the links between strategy, HR and the use of flexible employment contracts and (3) the moderating effects of strategy on the links between HR, flexible labour and firm performance.Using original data collected from manufacturing and service-sector companies, we find positive relationships between HR policies and practices and performance; that the relationship between HR and performance is dependent upon business strategy; and that companies pursuing an integrated approach to HR coupled with an innovator/qualityenhancer focus within their business strategy perform best. The use of external flexible labour reduces the effectiveness of HR, especially for those pursuing an innovator/qualityenhancer approach.

Drawing on systems theory, we conducted a moderated meta‐analysis of the training and organisational performance relationship using 119 primary studies. We examined the moderating effects of quality versus quantity of training, time, institutional and organisational context factors in the relationship between training and organisational performance. Our findings reveal that training is positively and directly related to organisational performance with no statistically significant difference between measures of training quality and quantity. We found that the relationship was stronger over time and that country performance orientation and country labour cost moderate the training and organisational performance relationship. We found no evidence for the moderating effects of the three organisational context moderators we examined (i.e. industry sector, organisational size and technology intensity). Finally, our results reveal that training type (i.e. general or firm‐specific) does not moderate the training and organisational performance relationship.