Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You and Your Team.

Learn More →

HRM and Performance: Achievements, Methodological Issues and Prospects

HRM and Performance: Achievements, Methodological Issues and Prospects Twenty years ago Guest (1987 ) published his normative framework describing the essence of HRM. He presented HRM as a new approach to personnel management, emphasizing its strategic contribution, its closer alignment to business, the involvement of line management, and focusing on HRM outcomes like commitment, flexibility and quality. The achievement of these human resource outcomes was, in turn, expected to contribute to a range of positive organizational outcomes, including high job performance, low turnover, low absence and high cost‐effectiveness through the full utilization of employees, now relabelled as human resources. Put this way, it is not difficult to understand the wide appeal that the notion of HRM had (and still has) to academics and practitioners alike. It led to the renaming of chairs/departments within universities and to changed job titles in the business community. The attractiveness of the concept of HRM increased considerably when Huselid, in 1995, published a ground‐breaking paper in the Academy of Management Journal in which he demonstrated a correlation between the degree of sophistication of HR‐systems and the market value per employee among a range of publicly quoted companies in the USA. The paper generated admiration, criticism and an abundance of ‘me too’ http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Management Studies Wiley

HRM and Performance: Achievements, Methodological Issues and Prospects

Journal of Management Studies , Volume 46 (1) – Jan 1, 2009

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/hrm-and-performance-achievements-methodological-issues-and-prospects-3nJzEdffkN
Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009
ISSN
0022-2380
eISSN
1467-6486
DOI
10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00809.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Twenty years ago Guest (1987 ) published his normative framework describing the essence of HRM. He presented HRM as a new approach to personnel management, emphasizing its strategic contribution, its closer alignment to business, the involvement of line management, and focusing on HRM outcomes like commitment, flexibility and quality. The achievement of these human resource outcomes was, in turn, expected to contribute to a range of positive organizational outcomes, including high job performance, low turnover, low absence and high cost‐effectiveness through the full utilization of employees, now relabelled as human resources. Put this way, it is not difficult to understand the wide appeal that the notion of HRM had (and still has) to academics and practitioners alike. It led to the renaming of chairs/departments within universities and to changed job titles in the business community. The attractiveness of the concept of HRM increased considerably when Huselid, in 1995, published a ground‐breaking paper in the Academy of Management Journal in which he demonstrated a correlation between the degree of sophistication of HR‐systems and the market value per employee among a range of publicly quoted companies in the USA. The paper generated admiration, criticism and an abundance of ‘me too’

Journal

Journal of Management StudiesWiley

Published: Jan 1, 2009

References