Scholars are directing more attention to employee perceptions of human resources (HR) practices and have explored issues such as whether and how employees' idiosyncratic or collective perceptions of HR practices shape employee outcomes. To further this area of research, we seek to determine what authors mean when they refer to "employee perceptions of HR practices". We review 105 articles from leading human resource management journals and find that employee perceptions of HR practices is not a monolithic concept. Rather, following previous scholars, we identify three distinct components of employee perceptions of HR practices: the 'what', 'how', and 'why'. We critically summarize extant literature on these three components of employee HR perception and propose future research directions, including enriching the theoretical foundations of HR communication, embracing cross-national contexts, and enhancing practical relevance. KEYWORDS Employee human resource perceptions; perceived human resource strength; human resource attributions Over the last decade, the strategic human resource management field has paid increasing attention to employee perceptions of human resource (HR) practices (Beijer, Peccie,

No abstract

Technology has changed the way we work and how companies manage their employees. This article reviews 60 years of research on the relationship between technology and human resource management, as represented in Human Resource Management. Based on 154 articles, we identify recurring and evolving patterns of research on technology across three time periods (separated by the advent of the personal computer in 1977 and by the popularization of consumer internet services in 1997), three perspectives on technology (tool, proxy, and ensemble view of technology), and three thematic streams (the impact of technology on jobs and organizations, the utilization of technology in HR activities, and the management of technology workers). Drawing on patterns of research that emerged in the past, we provide suggestions for future HR research on newly arriving technology.

This article—which serves as an introduction to the special issue of the role of (strategic) human resource management (HRM) in the era of environmental disruptions—summarizes previous research, introduces articles related to this special issue, and provides suggestions for future research in the area. This special issue intends to advance HRM research by putting it in the context of disruptive environments, aiming to deepen our theoretical and empirical knowledge about the role of HRM in these disruptive environments, and provide insights to managers and policymakers who must deal with current as well as future disruptions in extra‐organizational environments. The different sections of this introductory paper are structured from the perspective of an individual (“How can HRM help individual employees cope with environmental disruptions?”), an organization (“How can HRM help organizations be more resilient against environmental disruptions?”), and a community/societal perspective (“How can HRM help the community being affected by environmental disruptions?”). We conclude by proposing several research ideas and practical implications for human resource professionals that would enable them to deal with individual employees, their organization, and the community in times of environmental disruptions.

There has long been a dominant logic in the international business literature that multinational corporations should adapt business practices to “fit” host cultures. Business practices that are congruent with local cultural norms have been advocated as effective and desirable, while practices that are incongruent have been deemed problematic. We examine and challenge this persistent assumption by reviewing the literature showing evidence for both benefits and acceptance of countercultural practices (i.e., practices that are seemingly incongruent with local cultural norms or values), and disadvantages and rejection of local practices. Drawing on the literature reviewed, we offer four types of theoretical (ontological, epistemological, causal, and functional) explanations as to why and when countercultural business practices might be preferred. Finally, we provide a springboard for a future research agenda on countercultural practices, centered around understanding the circumstances under which businesses and local stakeholders might benefit from the use of countercultural practices based on such factors as strategic intent, local preferences, institutional drivers, and social responsibility.