Examining the Ability, Motivation and Opportunity (AMO) framework in HRM research: Conceptualization, measurement and interactions

Abstract

Despite the increasing popularity of the Ability, Motivation, Opportunity (AMO) framework in the Human Resource Management (HRM) field, AMO research is at a crossroads in theoretical and empirical development. This is due to (a) a lack of clarity about the conceptualisation and measurement of AMO variables, (b) the construction of AMO articles that do not distinguish between AMO differences and AMO‐enhancing HRM practices and fail to integrate them, (c) a lack of understanding about how AMO variables at the individual and organizational levels interact to generate individual and organizational performance, and (d) a lack of consideration of the process (mediators and moderators) through which AMO generates performance gains. Based on the analysis of 104 quantitative HRM articles published between 1997 and 2022, this study helps to draw clearer distinctions among AMO variables and levels of analysis. The review of the empirical literature shows that there is excessive heterogeneity with regard to the conceptualization and utilisation of AMO variables, which in turn leads to scale proliferation. We find that research on AMO‐enhancing HRM practices and AMO differences is rarely combined and tends to be tested at a single level rather than more logical cross‐level effects between AMO‐enhancing HRM practices, AMO differences and performance. We also found that whereas Ability and Motivation differences mediate the relationship between AMO‐enhancing HRM practices and performance, opportunity appears to be a boundary condition in the relationship between Ability and Motivation with performance outcomes. The paper concludes with relevant avenues for future AMO research suggested for the field of HRM.

Barriers to collaboration between school teachers and child care workers: implications for HRM and school leadership

“…A plausible explanation for this paradox lies in the non-identical nature of the measurements employed. The questionnaire utilised self-efficacy in IPC as a measure of IPC abilities, based on the theoretical premise that self-efficacy serves as a significant predictor of professional behaviour in specific contexts (Bos-Nehles et al 2023). The qualitative data on the other hand, identified challenges, primarily revolving around the lack of abilities in others rather than the participants' own deficiencies.…”

“…Abilities at the individual level are often measured with the construct of occupational self-efficacy, an individual's belief in their ability to be successful in certain situations or to accomplish a specific task (Bos-Nehles et al. 2023; Knies and Leisink, 2014; MacLeod et al.…”

“…The AMO framework proposes that individuals perform [here, collaborate] well when they have the ability (A), the motivation (M) and the opportunity (O) to perform (Beltr an-Mart ın and Bou-Llusar, 2018;Marin-Garcia and Martinez Tomas, 2016), Although AMO is often used on an organisational level, in which employees are considered consumers of HRM (Bos-Nehles et al 2023;Meijerink et al, 2016), we use the AMO framework at an individual level, by using employees' own perceptions of their AMO for IPC as a starting point. The rationale behind this choice is that providing insights into needs from an employee's perspective enables the alignment of HRM from an educational management perspective accordingly.…”

“…The AMO framework is widely applied to study factors that influence work performance (Bos-Nehles et al. 2023).…”

Bridging human resource management theory and practice: Implications for industry‐engaged academic research

“…At our most esoteric, we pursue an interest in particular issues, or topics, which come to dominate discussion in our academic journals. For various reasons, including how our work is acknowledged in universities (Darlington, 2009), the academic HRM researcher may be very focused on contributing to the further development of a popular theoretical concept or model, for example, the Ability, Motivation and Opportunity, or AMO, model (Bos‐Nehles et al., 2023). This focus on theory, rather than practice—or perhaps even a theory of practice (Bourdieu, 2020)—risks deteriorating into an ever‐tightening spiral of gap‐spotting research (Alvesson & Karreman, 2011) at the expense of the second component of our model— methods .…”