Research Methods in Human Resource Management - Essay Example

Running head: HRM Methodological Issues in Human Resource Management Research of Performance ___________ ________________________ ________________ Methodological Issues in Human Resource Management Research of Performance Introduction Human resources management is a self explained phrase. It refers to all those activities that are undertaken consciously or unconsciously, internally or externally to an organization whereby human resources of the organization are developed and utilized in a manner to maximize achievement of organizational goals. One important precept of entire human resources' management exercise is the recognition of the fact that the most valuable resource for any organization is its human factor; it is the only live factor and thus the only truly moldable factor. Therefore human resource management (HRM) is a term used to represent that part of an organization's activities concerned with the recruitment, development and management of its employees (Wood & Wall, 2002). It is an intended objective of HRM practices, undertaken under the paraphernalia of HRM, that organizational objectives are met. The most sharply defined organizational objective is performance. Performance in turn is expected to improve everything for the organization right from sales to profits. Therefore, in order to fine tune HRM practices frequent research is carried out not only to find out how past HRM practices and policies yielded but also to suggest newly improved HRM practices and policies for implementation. Often a case has been made that HRM research, say directly addressing the issue of employee performance, was conducted at great expense of time, funds and resources however the resultant improvement in employee performance after implementation of the findings of the research was not only not commensurate but grossly inadequate. While it may be possible that implementation schemata may have had serious errors and limitations however primary concern here is to explore if the HRM research undertaken was able to truly address the HRM issues at hand; whether it oversimplified the research scenario with overbearing and sweeping assumptions; whether it focused on appropriate subjects; if it did collected sufficient data from a sufficiently representative sample(s); if the data analysis was done using correct techniques; if it missed some of the important explanatory variables or even if it was able to formulate and test a contextual research question(s) or hypotheses. These issues are called methodological issues and if ignored can lead to fatally misleading research findings. In the following paragraphs methodological issues connected with HRM research in organizational performance will be examined and discussed. Relationship between HRM and performance A lot of research has been conducted in exploring the relationship between organizational performance and HRM practices. Two broad methodological approaches can be delineated exploring this relationship. One approach is entirely within the domain of strategic HRM and tries to explain this relationship through strategic considerations ranged from external environment to internal strategies of the organization. These approaches explain the link between performance and HRM practices by weaving HRM policies within the overall strategic thrust of the organization (Wright and Snell, 1998).Another approach focuses on universal HR practices which are commonly practiced in most organizations and are such practices are slated to lead to better performance (Delery and Doty, 1996).The strategy woven contingency approach considers human factor as a means in the hand of overall organizational strategy(ies) ,sub serving the purposes of such organizational strategies, and considers HRM practices as an adjunct tool for achievement of strategic objectives. The universalistic school approaches focus on high performance work practices and considers human factor development as an organizational goal by itself. Universalistic approach has led several HRM authors to focus on HRM systems concentrating on direct HRM practices such as highly fine tuned performance appraisals advanced recruitment and selection processes, elaborate training manuals , developing teamwork concepts, schemes for empowerment of employees, improving intra organization communications, designing performance-related pay and strengthening employment contracts for heightening job security. Collectively these practices are supposed to add to the skills and knowledge base within the organization, and as well as to awaken fully employees' willingness to deploy their acquired knowledge and skills for the objectives of the organization. It may be useful to note that this willingness of employees carries the connotation of employee commitment. This is likely to result in a high performance work culture and atmosphere within the organization and we have some authors researching with phrases like "high commitment" (Wood & de Menezes, 1998), or "high involvement" (Vandenberg, Richardson & Eastman, 1999 and Guthrie, 2001) to characterize the approach or as "human capital-enhancing" practices (Youndt, Snell, Dean & Lepak, 1996).A series of cross sectional HRM researches have supported the link which high performance HRM practices seem to have with performance outputs measured in terms of productivity, financial results, labor turnover and wastage and quality improvements(Ichniowski ,Shaw & Prennushi,1994;Arthur,1994;Huselid,1995).These researches tend to support more of the universal approach than the contingency approach. Though they do support some strategic link of high performance HRM practices (Becker & Gerhart, 1996).Some studies have suggested an additive link between performance and HRM wherein more such practices have better and positive impact universally(Pfeffer, 1994; Guest & Hoque, 1994).A synergistic approach has been suggested whereby individual HRM practices are postulated as almost ineffective on stand alone basis(Barney,1995) whereas in combination with other HRM practices these lead to effective performance impacts. Another link has been traced in the HRM practices leading to an overall improvement in other organizational practices. Some such authors have linked HRM practices and performance in a system of Total Quality Management (TQM) (Lawler, Mohrman and Ledford, 1995).Another link has been posited through the strategy of the organization. It is posited that HRM practices would produce linked better performance only when they are accorded due importance in the overall strategy of the organization (Schuler & Jackson, 1987; Miles & Snow, 1984). Whatever be the approach to establish link between HRM practices and organizational performance it is clear from literature survey that very few studies have been able to explain the translation process of HRM practices improving performance through changes in employee attitudes and behavior patterns and measured the impact of such changed attitudes and behavior patterns on employee performance.(Guest et al,2000).This is a methodological issue at the conceptual level and emphasizes the fact that a vital translation process has been overlooked and the research process has focused beyond on performance results. This observation also raises the methodological issue in hypothesis formation whereby the HRM practices as such seem to affect performance without specific reference to individual employee's attitudes and behavioral changes so as to make hypotheses almost half adopted. This also leads to research focus on variables other than those that could have explained the translation process and the data collected is also off mark. Taking cue from these observations other methodological weaknesses have been posited in research in exploring link between HRM practices and performance. Major methodological objection that has been advanced is that the causality of HRM practices leading to improved performance is presumed than proven. This tantamount to the fact that research is in fact assuming away what it is supposed to prove and that too in a highly optimistic manner completely sidestepping the downside effects. Several examples can be cited which indicate that in such studies abintio presumption is clearly made. A ready example would be all research and works which begin with laudatory and high sounding labels being attached to their works about HRM practices. A positive and laudatory label is indicative of the fact that the researcher is presuming that such HRM practices lead to highly effective performance. Many authors have used such labels for instance Delaney and Huselid (1996) refer to "performance-enhancing" Huselid (1995) earlier himself used the label "high performance work practices" and Lawler et al.'s (1995) wrote about "high performance organizations". Way (2002), for instance, states that "Theoretical and empirical HRM research has led to a general consensus that the method used by a firm to manage its workforce can have a positive impact on firm performance". We examine below other methodological weaknesses in research in probing a link between HRM practices and performance. Methodological Issues Any research follows a particular methodology. Issues whether the research oversimplified the research scenario with overbearing and sweeping assumptions; whether it focused on appropriate subjects; if it did collected sufficient data from a sufficiently representative sample(s); if the data analysis was done using correct techniques; if it missed some of the important explanatory variables or even if it was able to formulate and test a contextual research question(s) or hypotheses etc.We examine below critical methodological issues in research leading to linking HRM practices and performance. (a)How does one measure HRM practices and concepts such practices involve Some such concepts can be elusive for exact measurement.Involvement,motivation, commitment, initiative and even to certain extent,say,teamwork.There is bound to be subjectivity in the collected data. Staff lacking commitment may reveal a colored view and instead furnish data of high commitment. Then performance related variables may be understood as such and may be overstated by subjects meaning thereby performance considerations are affecting other variables. Thus subject and judgmental bias can be substantial and can produce a weighty random error. To overcome this question set seeking data should be as objective as possible and subject bias can be either moderated based on subject profile or vetted by an alternative subject. Even the data collected should be as objectively defined as possible. Most studies probing HRM practices and performance relationships normally use single respondents and are less reliable to that extent. Wright et al. (2001) make a clear statement of very low levels of reliability in HR measures. (b)The research on HRM practices and performance is washed by cross sectional research designs. Cross sectional research designs involve measuring both dependent and independent variable only once during the course of research. Whereas longitudinal research designs involve measurement of either dependent variable of independent variable or both at least twice during the course of research. Since cross sectional design measures variables only once it tends to be inexpensive and achievable within short time. However its limited data capabilities also place limitation in that it can be used in establishing only an initial causal relationship between two given variables. This causality in all probabilities is likely to weaker than multiple measurement designs. This is the methodological weakness that affects all performance and HRM practices research as most are cross sectional studies. Longitudinal designs can be suited to needs for readily. A hybrid of a longitudinal design can be in the form of quasi longitudinal design. For instance one can measure HRM practices as prevalent in one time period and measure performance in another time period. However problem would remain as to the exact impact of HRM practices if they were introduced sometime back. It would be very difficult to separate out pre and post research impacts on performance. However quasi longitudinal research can control reverse causality in that it can effectively stop the impact of past high performance on evolution of better HRM practices. True solution lies in having longitudinal research designs which can effectively lead to causality conclusions well supported by control data. However preponderance of cross sectional studies have made some writers label them as "temporally backward predictive" Way (2002).There is a time lag in getting the performance outcomes and outcomes received in any time period essentially represent the performance of an earlier period. In case in any cross sectional research both HRM practice and performance data is collected and correlated than the resulting causality would be a reverse causality with past performance impacting current period HRM practices. A situation which quasi or longitudinal research designs can easily avoid. (c )Sample size and Response rates While cross sectional studies can use larger samples however it is observed that sample sizes mostly range about 100-300.It is a statistical fact that a large sample would be more representative and can average out random errors caused by subjectivity and judgemental bias. Then samples are plagued by poor or imprecise response rates making generalizations risky and unrepresentative. Thus it is advisable to adopt a research design that has a representative number of respondents with robust response rates to ensure that causality generalizations are believable. (d)Controlling other variables While causality is sought to be probed between HRM practices and performance what happens to other variables that affect either of them or both of them .In other words other variables may impact each one of these independent and dependent variables. Control of such variables is normally achieved by a ceterus paribus kind of assumption. This is weak form of saying that while we know these variables are at work but we are not measuring their exact impact. In most studies in performance and HRM practice links, however, a size dimension of the organization(s) studied is consciously built to control. The impact of such variable, however, cannot be ruled out. (e) Measuring the dependent variable Performance is the dependent variable and its measurement should come from a source other the one which measures HRM practices or is involved into such measurement. This would unnecessarily bring in method bias. Moreover depending upon the type of category of organizational setting the performance measure would change. If one has a profit oriented organization then you may have firm performance measure such as," logarithms of net sales per employee and Gross Rate of Return on Assets(GRATE) and Tobin's q"(Huselid et al.,1997).In this research these measures were distinctly proven to be free from method bias and superior to normally used accounting ratios. Thus dependent variable measurement has to be carefully approached to prevent method bias. (f)Deciding what constitutes HRM practices It is vital to decide as to what constitutes the independent variable HRM practices. Is it the employee recruitment methods, performance appraisal systems, training schemata, teamwork considerations, intra organization communication, job design and description, employee empowerment and participation, performance-linked salaries and/or promotions, work place relations or even job security These must be decided in advance with entire system of interrelationships between these subsets. This would enable a clear definition of the exact HRM practices we are probing. This may also differ from organization to organization and a common thread has to be established. For instance an old well set organizational structure of a profitable corporate may be more concerned with HRM issues such as employee empowerment and sophisticated training in information technology use. Whereas a newer organization in the same industry may still be trying to match the first organization in terms of organization structures and setting up job descriptions and designs. The HRM practices would likely to vary a great deal between the two organizations. Thus a common research definition of such practices will have to be found to ensure any kind of comparability. Implications are abundantly clear. The research findings with above methodological weaknesses are to be interpreted with caution. A researcher may be working against the backdrop of a resource base concept of an organization or even a contingency conceptualization. He may adopt a synergy approach to HRM practices or an overall organizational quality approach. He may even consider HRM practices as an important part of the overall organizational strategic thrust. However the causal link between HRM practices and performance has to be based on solid methodological foundations. To begin with our hypothesis have to cease assuming or presuming the causality which itself is to be established. Research questions are to be developed to lead to proper link between the independent and dependent variable. Then we must shift our focus from cross sectional studies to longitudinal or quasi longitudinal studies so as to collect more data spread over more time and take care of any reverse causality.HRM practices are to be clearly defined to form an interrelated and consistent set to form an observable independent variable. Then measures of such both independent and dependent variables are to be decided so as to be reliable and consistent. Then we must set data free of all biases. Findings thus arrived would be relevance as a theoretical construct as well as a potent tool of HRM practice. Conclusion HRM research is often not conducted in a manner to lead to transparent and reliable conclusions.HRM practice however requires more precise guidance from HRM research. HRM practices and their link with performance is a much researched topic. Such links have been posited in several ways as a contingency approach and a universalistic approach. Some researchers tend to utilize a combination of two. Synergy, association with TQM systems and strategic HRM are the other possible links researched to establish causality between HRM practices and performance. It has also been revealed that quite a number of research efforts had presumed the causality link between HRM practices and performance which it had set out to establish. Thus making such studies only evidence collecting exercises of a presumed causality. A common thread across such research has been few glaring methodological weaknesses. First of them relates to use of cross sectional research designs which leads to weak causality form. Second is using sample sizes which are not large enough to be categorized representative, particularly given the low response rates generalizations tend to be over ambitious. Other methodological shortcomings relate to inability to separate various category of bias from collected data so as to inflate random errors and even comparable and consistent definition independent variable. Implication is that the causality claims adduced by such research is to be considered with caution. Alternatively methodological improvements have to come about primarily in terms of shifting focus to pure longitudinal research designs with large sample sizes ensuring a robust response rate. Works Cited Wood, S. J. & Wall, T. D. "Human resource management and business performance". In P. B. Warr (Ed), Psychology at work. Harmonsworth: Penguin, 2002. Wright,P.M and Snell,S.A."Towards a Unifying Framework for Exploring Fit and Flexibility in strategic Human Resource Management". Academy of Management Review.23(4).pp 757-772.1998. Delery, J. and Doty, D.H."Modes of Theorizing in Strategic Human Resource Management: tests of Universalistic, Contingency, and Configurational Performance Predictions." Academy of Management Journal.39 (4).pp 802-835.1996. Wood, S. J & de Menezes, L." High commitment management in the UK: Evidence from the Workplace Industrial Relations Survey and Employers. Manpower and Skills Practices Survey". Human Relations. 51.pp 485-515. 1998. Vandenberg, R. J., Richardson, H. A. & Eastman, L. J. " The impact of high involvement work processes on organizational effectiveness". Groups and Organization Management. 24.pp 300-399. 1999. Guthrie, J. P. " High involvement work practices and, turnover and productivity: Evidence from New Zealand". Academy of Management Journal.44.pp 180-190. 2001. Youndt, M. A., Snell, S. A., Dean, J. E. & Lepak, D. P. "Human resource management, manufacturing strategy, and firm performance. " Academy of Management Journal. 39.pp 836-865. 1996. Ichniowski, C., Shaw, K. & Prennushi, G. " The effects of human resource management practices on productivity: A Study of Steel Finishing Lines". American Economic Review. 87, pp 291-313. 1997. Arthur, J. B. "Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance and turnover". Academy of Management Journal. 7.pp 670-687. 1994. Huselid, M. A. "The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance". Academy of Management Journal.38.pp 635-672. 1995. Becker, B. E. & Gerhart, B."The impact of human resource management on organizational performance: Progress and prospects". Academy of Management Journal. 39.pp 779-801. 1996. Guest, D. E., Michie, J., Conway, N. & Shehan, M. "Getting Inside the HRM-Performance Relationship." A paper presented at the Academy of Management Conference.Toronto.August 2000. Pfeffer, J. "Competitive advantage through people: Unleashing the power of the workforce". Boston: Harvard University Press.1994. Guest, D. & Hoque, K." The good, the bad and the ugly: Employee relations in new non-union workplaces". Human Resource Management Journal. 5.pp1-14. 1994. Barney, J. "Looking inside for competitive advantage". Academy of Management Executive. 9.pp 49-61. 1995. Lawler, E. E., Mohrman, S.A. & Ledford, G.E., Jr. "Creating high performance organizations". San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995. Schuler, R. S. & Jackson, S. E. " Linking competitive strategies with HRM management strategies". Academy of Management Executive. 1. 207-19. 1987. Miles, R. E. & Snow, C. C. "Designing strategic human resource systems". Organizational Dynamics. 13.36-52. 1984. Delaney, J. T. & Huselid, M. A. "The impact of human resource management practices on perceptions of organizational performance". Academy of Management Journal. 39.pp 919-969. 1996. Huselid, M. A. "The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance". Academy of Management Journal. 38.pp 635-672. 1995. Way, S. A." High performance work systems and intermediate indicators of firm performance within the US small business sector". Journal of Management. 28.pp 765-785. 2002. Wright, P. M., Gardner, T. M., Moynihan, L. M., Park, H. J., Gerhart, B., & Delery, J. E. "Measurement error in research on human resources and firm performance: Additional data and suggestions for future research". Personnel Psychology. 54.pp 875-901.2001. Huselid, M. A., Jackson, S. E. & Schuler, R. S." Technical and strategic human resource management effectiveness as a determinant of firm performance". Academy of Management Journal. 40.pp 171-188.1997, Read More