Mind the Intended‐Implemented Gap: Understanding Employees’ Perceptions of HRM

Abstract

This study aims to shed light on the implementation of HR practices as a key piece of the human resource management (HRM)-performance puzzle. Although the literature suggests that discrepancies between the organization's intended and implemented HR practices are essential to understanding employees' perceptions of and reactions to HRM, little attention has been devoted to this issue. Drawing upon a multiple-case study of German health and social services organizations, we therefore explore the linkages (and potential gaps) between intended, implemented, and perceived HR practices. Our study provides new insights into the underlying mechanisms of this relationship, highlighting an organization's ability to leverage its resources as playing a crucial moderating role in implementing intended HR practices, while employees' expectations of HRM moderate the link between implemented and perceived HR practices. We advance a set of propositions that contributes to a more nuanced, multilevel understanding of the complex phenomenon of HRM implementation.

The dynamic nature of HRM implementation: a structuration perspective

“…Secondly, by revealing organisational actors' roles we extend the literature on the role of not only line managers (Gilbert et al, 2011;Guest & Bos-Nehles, 2013;Nehles, Van Riemsdijk, Kok, & Looise, 2006;Trullen et al, 2016), but also of the broader HRM function (Beer, 1997;Valverde, Ryan, & Soler, 2006). Finally, by demonstrating the process through which new behaviour becomes incorporated within organisations we contribute to insights in the intended-actual-perceived HRM debate (Khilji & Wang, 2006;Makhecha et al, 2016;Piening et al, 2014;Wright & Nishii, 2013).…”

“…Lately, this has embodied research into the implementation of HRM (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004;Nishii, Lepak, & Schneider, 2008;Ostroff & Bowen, 2016;Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007;Wright & Nishii, 2013), which entails broadly the transition process during which HRM policies and practices develop from an idea or goal, into an institutionalised, functioning organisational instrument. We have observed three main foci in the academic study of HRM implementation; even though these are not always termed as such: (i) HRM system strength (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004;Farndale & Kelliher, 2013;Sanders & Yang, 2016), (ii) intended, actual and perceived HRM (Bondarouk, Bos-Nehles, & Hesselink, 2016;Bos-Nehles, Bondarouk, & Labrenz, 2017;Khilji & Wang, 2006;Makhecha, Srinivasan, Prabhu, & Mukherji, 2016;Nishii et al, 2008;Piening, Baluch, & Ridder, 2014;Wright & Nishii, 2013), (iii) roles of line managers in implementing HRM (Bos- Nehles, Bondarouk, & Nijenhuis, 2017;Gilbert, De Winne, & Sels, 2011;Op de Beeck, Wynen, & Hondeghem, 2016;Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007;Trullen, Stirpe, Bonache, & Valverde, 2016;Vermeeren, 2014).…”

The Link between HR Attributions and Employees’ Turnover Intentions

“…Where there is a concern that the role of HRM is starting to shift back to a strategy focus (van Buren III et al 2011), the findings of this study indicate that employee focus is also of importance. Employees' perceptions and interpretations of HR practices should not be discarded but organizations should synchronize the intended and implemented HR practices as it is essential to understand the employees' reactions to HR practices (Piening et al 2014). As suggested by van Buren III et al (2011), HRM professionals should champion both the management's and the employees' needs because they are of equal importance to achieving the organizational outcomes.…”

“…As mentioned in Kelley (1967), Bowen and Ostroff (2004), and Piening et al (2014), the implementation of an effective HR system depends on the employees' view that the HR system fulfills the criteria of consistency, distinctiveness, and consensus. Therefore, in order for the employees to accurately perceive their management's intentions for their HR practices, the management must firstly deliver consistently clear messages/signals to the employees regarding the intentions of the HR practices, and ensure that these messages/ signals do not have contradictory meanings resulting in confusion.…”

“…The content-based approach and the process-based approach are discussed the most by researchers to explain the link between HRM and organizational performance (Bowen and Ostroff 2004;Chen and Wang 2014;Sanders and Yang 2015): The content-based approach focuses on the implementation of a set of HR practices to achieve the organization's strategic goals, whereas the process-based approach focuses on the psychological process through which employees attach meaning to the HR practices adopted by their management to reach the organizational goals. Although the latter has recently received an increasing importance from researchers to solve the HRM-performance link, insight into this process is still limited (Piening et al 2014).…”