HRM and Performance: A Plea for Reflexivity in HRM Studies

Abstract

In this Counterpoint, we build on Paauwe's suggestions to take the field of HRM and Performance further. Rather than aiming for a synthesis or proposing a radical alternative, we argue that R(econstructive)-reflexivity is needed for theorizing HRM. In particular, we bring in insights from critical studies on the notion of HRM, on the notion of performance, and on the theoretical relationship between them as a way to open up new research avenues and lines of interpretation. For each of these three aspects, we indicate how studying the employment relationship can be reframed. In particular, we emphasize practice-oriented research as one possible research path for the field of HRM as it allows for an examination of HRM as a set of practices, embedded in a global economical, political and socio-cultural context. We end our counterpoint by reflecting on reflexivity, proposing three practices that can guide HRM scholars in becoming reflexive in the ways they study HRM.

Beyond the enterprise: Broadening the horizons of International HRM

“…However, the limitations of the managerialist agenda of HRM research have recently become the subject of considerable concern among mainstream HRM researchers (Boxall et al, 2007;Paauwe, 2009), while Critical HRM scholars (Delbridge and Keenoy, 2010;Keegan and Boselie, 2006) have continued to draw attention to the narrowness and conservatism of this mainstream. The main criticisms have been the obsession with linking HRM and business performance, an unreflexive acceptance of the managerialist perspective, assumptions of unitarism and universalism, the decontextualization of management practices, and the dominance of positivist approaches (see Delbridge and Keenoy, 2010;Hesketh and Fleetwood, 2006;Janssens and Steyaert, 2009;Keegan and Boselie, 2006;Keenoy, 2009).…”

Implementing HRM Systems: The Role of Employees' Co-Production Behavior and HRM Attributions

“…Although strategic HRM researchers implicitly assume employees to be passive recipients of HRM (Janssens & Steyaert, 2009;Lepak & Boswell, 2012), other streams of literature have shown that this assumption is open to question. In fact, several concepts exist in the literature that capture the involvement of employees in HRM processes.…”

“…Although these studies help to advance our understanding of how employees perceive HRM systems, at the same time, several authors have raised concerns that they are too management-centered (Janssens & Steyaert, 2009;Keegan & Boselie, 2006;Lepak & Boswell, 2012). Prior research has primarily focused on managerial actions in HRM implementation, ignoring employees as important implementers of HRM systems.…”

“…through career self-management (Kossek, Roberts, Fisher, & Demarr, 1998), idiosyncratic deals (Rousseau, 2005) and job crafting (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001), the strategic HRM literature has not yet answered the call to study whether such employee actions in turn affect the effective implementation of HRM systems (Janssens & Steyaert, 2009;Lepak & Boswell, 2012). …”

Can Employability Do the Trick? Revealing Paradoxical Tensions and Responses in the Process of Adopting Innovative Employability Enhancing Policies and Practices in Organizations

“…Moreover, these studies often employ a quantitative research design, including a preselected and limited set of variables in their models. Although the psychological lens is shown to be fruitful in order to answer many problem definitions at the micro-level, due to their intention to be parsimonious and internally consistent, the wider organizational context influencing and explaining how EP&Ps are perceived, attitudes shaped, and behaviours enacted is sometimes recognised, but often ignored and eliminated (cf., Janssens & Steyaert, 2009;Poole & Van de Ven, 1989). In practice, the employability issue is strongly embedded in political debates, and affected by global economic structures.…”