Human Resource Management in Competitive Environment - Essay Example

Running Head: HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Human Resource Management in Competitive Environment of the of the Human Resource Management in Competitive Environment Introduction As a field of management practice and a site of commerce school studies, the field of strategic human resource management (SHRM) has developed progressively since the mid-1980s. Business executives, students and academics have been discuss what it might mean to take a 'strategic advance' to human resource management (HRM). The purpose of this paper is to assess theoretical development and research progress in the field of SHRM. We begin by discussing definitional issues and then examine major areas of theory and research in SHRM up to the current time. The areas we discuss include the debate between 'best-fit' and 'best-practice' models, and the application to HRM of the resource-based view of the firm. These areas account for the vast mainstream of academic work in the field. The paper concludes with our appraisal of how research should be built-up from this point forward. Strategic Human Resource Management: what do we mean There is still important diversity in the literature over the implication of 'strategic human resource management' and its cohort term, 'human resource strategy'. It is vital that we take time to explain our terms, because the definitions we assume color the way we think about the key conjectural tribulations connected with the subject. To initiate with, what do we mean by 'human resource management' and by that old word 'strategic' Our inclination is for a broad, comprehensive definition of HRM. human resource management comprise anything and all connected with the management of service relationships in the firm. We do not connect human resource management exclusively with a high-commitment model of labor administration or with any exacting ideology or style of organization. High-commitment strategies do exist, but we are also apprehensive with the many cases in which management is following routine goals through lower levels of regard or is looking for to manage composite, segmented employees through variable levels of dedication (Boxall 2001; Purcell 2001, 1999a). To produce better theory and enable better practice, the academic regulation of human resource management should identify and evaluate the variety of organization styles that exist in modern workplaces. What dissimilarity does it make, then, when we apply the adjective strategic to HRM In many cases, together with a large number of manuals, it means nothing at all. If, though, we aim to be careful about words, the request of the adjective strategic must imply a concern with the ways in which human resource management is critical to organizational effectiveness. There are always strategic alternatives associated with labor progression in the firm -- whether highly considered or largely developing in management behavior -- and these choices are unavoidably associated to the firm's performance (Child 1972, 1997; Dyer 1984; Mintzberg 1978; Purcell and Ahlstrand 2003, 37-42). It is helpful to think of strategic choices on two levels: they either play a vital role in reinforcement the firm's viability (make-or-break choices) or them explanation for major, ongoing differentiation in business performance (Boxall and Steeneveld 1999). In adopting this sympathetic, it is suitable to refer to a firm's pattern of strategic choices in labor administration (including critical ends and means) as its 'human resource (HR) strategy' (Dyer 1984). To illustrate what we mean about strategic choices in HRM, take the case of a management consulting firm that aims to join the elite cluster of firms that are transnational, if not 'global' in their reach (firms such as McKinsey, PricewaterhouseCoopers and Anderson Consulting). There is no doubt that such a firm must have highly selective recruitment and strong development of staff to ensure it can consistently offer clients high-quality service on complex business problems. In this elite 'strategic group', a synergistic blend of certain human resource policies -- such as proactive recruitment channels, high entry standards, high pay, employee ownership and extensive professional education -- are critical prerequisites to a firm's credibility in its sectoral labor market. On the other hand, it is unlikely that there is much hanging on the firm's choice of job evaluation systems. If any one of a range of such systems supports its remuneration goals in recruiting and retaining highly qualified consultants, or doesn't perversely undermine them, then the choice among different systems is not critical. Similarly, the contracting out of payroll or benefits administration in such a firm is not a strategic dimension of its human resource management. It is not difficult to meet the requirements of employment contracts in these areas and elite firms are not differentiated from lesser firms on this basis. What is critical, however, is that the firm's leaders put together and apply the system of broad-based HR policies that will help the firm to join the elite group of professional firms in its sector -- although it would be unwise to think that this will happen quickly or be achieved solely through HR strategy (Mueller 2001; Boxall and Steeneveld 1999). This design of strategic choice-making is a very uncomplicated one, and we should pause to explain what we are entailing about concepts of efficiency in firms and the management process concerned in shaping and realization. We do not want to summon up a picture of the firm as a 'manufacture function' in which management has perfect information about promotion and hi-tech alternative and merely configures human and non-human possessions in the best way to meet preferred financial objectives (as is still argued in base texts in microeconomics). Effectiveness is a multidimensional concept which is subject to paradox (Cameron 1986). While firms are economic units -- with shareholders who suppose sufficient financial returns -- they are reliant on the services of a system of different members of the general public, including workforce and agencies of the state. Not only must administrator try to reach the economic goals preferred by shareholders, but they must also try to deal with the drivers of employee approval and with broad notions of social authenticity (see, for example, Granovetter 1985; Kochan 1999; Lees 1997; Oliver 1997). To hold the firm mutually, management must secure sufficient levels of common attention but trade-offs are characteristically concerned across some stakeholder objectives (Hill and Jones 1992). Major alteration often throws these trade-offs into sharper relief. A reformation of the section in a business -- which warns historical budgets and jobs -- will in general challenge stakeholder benefit. Including those of managers whose own benefit create 'agency' problems for the firm (Jensen and Meckling 1976). And while influenced cooperation is an significant feature of strategic management, we should also recognize the current problem of inadequate information -- about both present and future -- and cognitive restrictions in the management of complication (Child 1997). Through such things as better ecological examination, more thorough deliberate in the top management team, and more broad employee participation in the planning process, some firms are better organized for the future than others (Boxall 2001). Strategic Human Resource Management: 'best fit' or 'best practice' Complexities aside, most research and theoretical debate in strategic human resource management has been consumed with a contest between two normative models of how firms should make strategic choices in labor management. One model --the 'best-fit' school -- argues that HR strategy will be more effective when it is appropriately integrated with its specific organizational and environmental context. This begs a string of questions about which are the most critical contingencies in this complex context and how they are best connected. The other model advocates universalism, arguing that all firms will be better off if they identify and adopt 'best practice' in the way they manage people. This sounds more simple but begs questions about how 'best practice' is defined and about why we see such limited diffusion of most of the 'best-practice' models that are currently advocated, both within complex firms and across sectors of the economy. Let us explore each model more fully and then examine what the research has to say. The 'Best-Fit' School In one of the most widely cited basis, Baird and Meshoulam (1988) argue that HR actions, like formation and systems, must fit the organization's stage of expansion -- somewhat they call 'external fit' (otherwise called 'vertical fit'). This involves relaxed, more flexible styles of human resource management among start-up firms and more proper, professionalized styles as firms become more mature and amplify the number and range of employees. It involves the need to cope with intricate anxiety between transference and co-ordination when large firms expansion. They also argue for 'internal fit', for the need to guarantee that employee HR policies are intended to 'fit with and support each other' (p. 122) (otherwise called 'horizontal fit'). Most models of 'best fit' are anxious with what is intended by 'external fit' and with how to attain it. There are then flow-on proposition for internal fit, a point to which we will come back. The most influential 'best-fit' model, conversely, has been one in which external fit is clear by the firm's competitive strategy rather than its stage of improvement. In this model, the basic method for strategic human resource management engages getting HR strategy into line with business needs so definite. In Schuler and Jackson's (1987) extensively cited formulation, it is disagree that HR practices, should be planned to strengthen the behavioral suggestion of the diverse 'generic strategies' distinct by Porter (1985). Thus, it is indirect, firm presentation will get better when HR practices jointly strengthen the firm's (preset) choice of cost management, separation or focus as its competitive attitude. Much of the problem with eventuality conceive in strategic human resource management stems from the propensity of researchers to look for relationship between two variables, such as competitive strategy and HR strategy, infrequently reasonable by a third variable. Such models are 'too thin', omitted much of the interactive, multivariate complication of strategic management in the real world. While we should try to circumvent contingency models that are 'too thick' --throwing in the whole thing plus the kitchen sink -- we do need to develop models that give details of the significant relations. In this regard, a more complicated move toward to contingency theory engages taking a 'configurational' viewpoint (Boxall 2001, 1999): one in which business stratagem is seen as a 'Gestalt' of critical, mutually dependent fundamentals. These fundamentals include such very important areas as sectoral choice, competitive strategy, appropriate technology, structure and essential levels of investment and workforce. A advanced business strategy is one that links all of these sections in a more useful design or gestalt (Miller 1981; Veliyath and Srinavasan 2002). Enchanting such a view, we are more likely to expose some of the delicate connections between strategic variables. For example, we are likely to find that the effect of competitive strategy on HR strategy, at least in industrialization, is precious by the intervening technology used in the firm (Boxall 1999; Purcell 1999b; Snell and Dean 1992; Youndt et al. 2001). When firm implements advanced manufacturing expertise, it may practice improvement and value management rather than the kind of de-skilling and task interest more suitable to previous technological outline, even if its aggressive goal is to attain the lowest unit costs in the production. As Koch and McGrath (2001,351) reveal, very cautious preparation for staff is often priceless in capital concentrated firms. Getting workers who 'love the gear' and can make it reach its efficiency provision is the main concern in such cases. Even better, if employees can take the equipment beyond its output provision . In review, then, 'best-fit' models argue that HR strategy develop into more efficient when it is planned to fit certain critical contingencies in the firm's particular context. After some early, moderately 'thin' contingency models, there may now be trends towards configurationally models that are more competent of recognize the composite relations concerned in business strategy and towards more dynamic theory. The 'Best-practice' School Position beside contingency belief is those writers who disagree that organizations should adopt 'best practice' irrespective of background. In very simple terms, all firms will see performance development if only they identify and apply 'best practice'. We should, of course, keep in mind that the idea of 'best practice' is not novel. It was a key theme in the personnel management text (Legge 1978) and remains as difficult as ever. Most interest for 'best practice' initiate in the USA. Possibly, the most powerful set of explanation at the present time is connected with Jeffrey Pfeffer's (2003) sixteen practices. More expediently, Pfeffer (1998) has now sum up these down to seven: - employment security - selective hiring - self-managed teams or teamworking - high pay contingent on company performance - extensive training - reduction of status differences - sharing information. Description of 'best practice' is nearly always strained from study on the four favorite sub-functions of learner personnel psychology: selection, training, appraisal and pay. Most of this research is silo-based and combined by scholars who fail to recognize their principles or broader academic outline. Lists of best practices are often fragile or silent on issues relating to work organization and worker voice (Marchington and Grugulis 2000). Though, it must be familiar that feature of 'best practice' is widely recognized by researchers and practitioners (Delery and Dory 2001, 806). In collection, for example, hardly someone would enthusiast amorphous consultation over interviews cautiously planned around job relevant factors. Correspondingly, no one would supporter trait-based presentation evaluation over process that examines key job behaviors or effect. But further than these sorts of uncomplicated recommendation, we enter into much more hard terrain. Not only do lists of attractive practices vary considerably (Becker and Gerhart 2001; Dyer and Reeves 2002), but advocates of 'best practice' persist to fabricate the question of goals and welfare, long recognized by Legge (1978) as a difficulty with this type of trade literature. What ambitions are being provided by 'best practice' Taking the difference we made earlier involving viability and continued improvement, does 'best practice' serve one or the other' If it is the previous, all firms in a segment need to put into practice it to continue viable. If, however, 'best practice' is about generate continued benefit, only partial numbers of firms can attain it and others will be deprived consequently (as we discuss in the section on the resource-based view of the firm). And then there is the difficulty of benefit or whose goals are being served. If 'best practice' serves both shareholder and employee wellbeing, we can hardly object to it. Likewise, we agree some practice is bad for both revelry and should be evaded. But what if a practice is good for business returns but bad for workforce Do employees get a real voice in settle on the issue (Marchington and Grugulis 2000) And what if a strategy is good for management but not good for either shareholders or salaried employees Practicing these sorts of questions unavoidably leads us into a situation where the idea of 'best practice' must be profoundly competent. But let's not take this step right away. Let's recess to return on the delve into about 'best fit' and 'best practice'. Overall, the US research suggests that high-commitment practices are most accepted in those regions where the firm participate through quality and service, and can only continue viable from side to side developing sophisticated technology (as in multifaceted manufacturing) or through a highly capable interface with clients (as in professional services). In sectors where these circumstances are not met, firms have implemented more self-effacing employment policies, the kind of strategies that are dependable with hiring and retaining sufficient workers in the appropriate labor markets (Nord 1999). Where labor markets are still very loose, this means that functioning environment have remained fixed or worsen. (Anyone who looks at the broader social picture -- in any of the 'Anglo-Saxon' economies --over the last 20 years can see that this is noticeably the case.) In result, there is not a large amount of research that can be used to bear a universalist case for any of the lists of best practices currently support in the USA or somewhere else. A pointed assessment by Wood (1999) of the ideas, procedures and understanding of universalist studies in the human resource management studies argues for a lot of concern. We agree, noting two points in meticulous. An instant reflection tells us those inquires such as 'What is the fraction of the workers whose job has been subjected to a proper job analysis' are going to expose very little about the superiority of management. Correspondingly, the question about the quantity of the workforce who undergoes 'a service test' before recruitment tells us zilch about the authority and consistency of the testing. Nor does discovery of what part of the employees have right of entry to criticism machinery tell us no matter whether management facility with such measures in ways that get better trust levels. Application of Resource-based Theory The second major area of hypothetical progress in strategic human resource management is connected with the resource-based view (RBV) of the firm. Observation of the RBV is now a central measurement of any major appraisal of the field of strategic management (see, for example, Conner 1991; Hoskisson et al. 1999; Mahoney and Pandian 1992). The theory of strategic management was proposed in the 1980s by 'positioning models' of the strategic dilemma, which tend to overstated the significance of choosing striking industry situation and competitive attitude. It is now a more impartial body of consideration in which examination of the internal distinctiveness of firms occupies an evenly significant role (Boxall 2001). Compared with the discussion between 'best fit' and 'best practice', this area is much less well developed in the literature on strategic Human Resource Management. Though, accessible improvements do suggest significant lines for potential enquiry. Resource-based Theory For strategy managers, the main issue in the resource-based perception is how firms can build exceptional, desirable clusters of human and practical 'assets'. Possessions are valuable when they enable the firm to take benefit of market opportunities or deal principally well with market threats in a way that participants are not presently able to (Barney 1991; Porter 1991). The task is to handle these inadequate resources in such a way that rivals are aggravated in their hard work to eradicate or reproduction of the benefit they provide. Nothing, of course, is resistant to 'Schumpeterian shocks' (essential break-throughs that upset technologies or fundamental impression of business in the sector) (Barney 1991). However, there is extent for firms to distinguish themselves in ways that are comparatively sustainable in a given competitive context. Concerning the perception to our preceding section, we might say that resource-based models are mostly apprehensive with how to achieve 'unique fit' or 'exclusive practice'. The issue is one of how to construct valuable, firm-specific distinctiveness and 'barriers to reproduction' of them (Reed and deFillippi 1990; Rumelt 1997). Conclusions Examination in strategic human resource management is apprehensive with recognizing the strategic choices connected with the use of labor in firms and with clearing up why some: firms control them more efficiently than others. Strategic alternative in human resource management engage political negotiation as well as severe cognitive confront. Theory in strategic HRM is made more multifarious by a range of aspect, including the segmentation of internal labor markets, the control of diverse circumstance, and the dependence of strategic management in firms, among others. As a field, strategic human resource management is significant to researchers and students who want to comprehend business strategy improved and of great realistic implication to management --mainly to those management teams that want to stand back from the feature of labor management and assess the firm's performance as an employer. In this paper, we have discovered two main areas of research and theoretical advances in strategic human resource management: the debate between 'best-fit' and 'best-practice' models and the overrun into human resource management of ideas connected with the RBV of the firm. Our findings of the best-fit/best-practice debate does imply a larger set of difficulty for those who want to see them. If we are apprehensive about major social and economic problem, discussion in strategic HRM should be related to questions that extend well beyond the firm-level of examination. Along with numerous others, we take the view that theory in strategic human resource management should link to discussions about the kinds of market parameter and social capital that are desirable to offer more secure, more satisfying work for a larger part of our people. This is appropriate a more serious nexus of academic work in the social sciences commonly because of the extensive disquiet over income variation, work life equilibrium, and social delicateness in the 'knowledge economy'. A further line of enquiry involves investigating the role of HR strategy in the dynamics of alteration (including both modernization and reproduction). This implies a need to revise business in a much more interdisciplinary or complete way, linking models of human resource management with ideas developed in such areas as IT, functions and directorial behavior much more efficiently than we have in the past. It also implies a need, as has been said several times before, to work with the kind of longitudinal methods that allow for estimation of the ways in which interrelated proportions of management change over time. References Arthur, J. (2003). Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance and turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 670-687. Baird, L. and Meshoulam, I. (1988). Managing two fits of strategic human resource management. Academy of Management Review, 13(1), 116-128. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120. Becker, B. and Gerhart, B. (2001). The impact of human resource management on organizational performance: progress and prospects. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 779-801. Berg, P., Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T. and Kalleberg, A. (2001). The performance effects of modular production in the apparel industry. Industrial Relations, 35(3), 356-373. Boxall, P. (1992) Strategic human resource management: beginnings of a new theoretical sophistication Human Resource Management Journal, 2(3), 60-79. Boxall, P. (2002). Building the theory of comparative HRM. Human Resource Management Journal, 5(5), 51-7. Boxall, P. (2001). The strategic HRM debate and the resource-based view of the firm. Human Resource Management Journal, 6(3), 59-75. Boxall, P (1998). Achieving competitive advantage through human resource strategy: towards a theory of industry dynamics. Human Resource Management Review, 8(3), 265-288. Boxall, P. (1999). Human resource strategy and industry-based competition: a conceptual framework and agenda for theoretical development. In Wright, P., Dyer, L., Boudreau, J. and Milkovich, G. (eds), Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management (Supplement 4: Strategic Human Resources Management in the Twenty-First Century). Stamford, CT and London, UK: JAI Press. Boxall, P. and Steeneveld, M. (1999). Human resource strategy and competitive advantage: a longitudinal study of engineering consultancies. Journal of Management Studies, 36(4), 443-463. Brewster, C. (1999). Different paradigms in strategic HRM: questions raised by comparative research. In Wright, P., Dyer, L., Boudreau, J. and Milkovich, G. (eds), Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management (Supplement 4: Strategic Human Resources Management in the Twenty-First Century). Stamford, CT and London, UK: JAI Press. Cameron, K. (1986). Effectiveness as paradox: consensus and conflict in conceptions of organizational effectiveness. Management Science, 32(5), 539-553. Carroll, G. and Hannan, M. (eds) (2002). Organizations in Industry: Strategy, Structure and Selection. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Child, J. (1972). Organizational structure, environment and performance: the role of strategic choice. Sociology, 6(3), 1-22. Child, J. (1997). Strategic choice in the analysis of action, structure, organization,; and environment: retrospect and prospect. Organization Studies, 18(1), 43-76. Coff, R. (1997). Human assets and management dilemmas: coping with hazards on the road to resource-based theory. Academy of Management Review, 22(2), 374-402. Conner, K. (1991). A historical comparison of resource-based theory and five schools of thought within industrial organization economics: do we have a new theory of the firm Journal of Management, 17(1), 121-154. Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J. el al. (1998). Knowledge-driven Work. New York: Oxford University Press. De Cieri, H. and Dowling, P. (1999). Strategic human resource management in multinational enterprises: theoretical and empirical developments. In Wright, P., Dyer, L., Boudreau, J. and Milkovich, G. (eds), Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management (Supplement 4: Strategic Human Resources Management in the Twenty-First Century). Stamford, CT and London, UK: JAI Press. Deephouse, D. (1999) To be different, or to be the same It's a question (and theory) of strategic balance. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 147-166. Delery, J. (1998). Issues of fit in strategic human resource management: implications for research. Human Resource Management Review, 8(3), 289-309. Delery, J. and Doty, D. (2001). Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource management: tests of universalistic, contingency, and configurational performance predictions. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 802-835. Dierickx, I. and Cool, K. (1989). Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science, 35(12), 1504-1514. Dyer, L. (1984). Studying human resource strategy. Industrial Relations, 23(2), 156-169. Dyer, L. and Reeves, T. (2002). Human resource strategies and firm performance: what do we know and where do we need to go International Journal of Human Resource Management, 6(3), 656-670. Dyer, L. and Shafer, R. (1999). Creating organizational agility: implications for strategic human resource management. In Wright, P., Dyer, L,, Boudreau, J. and Milkovich, G. (eds), Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management (Supplement 4: Strategic Human Resources Management in the Twenty-First Century). Stamford, CT and London, UK: JAI Press. Edvinsson, L. and Malone, M. (1997). Intellectual Capital. London: Piatkus. Evans, P. and Genadry, N. (1999). A duality-based perspective for strategic human resource management. In Wright, P., Dyer, L., Boudreau, J. and Milkovich, G. (eds), Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management (Supplement 4: Strategic Human Resources Management in the Twenty-First Century). Stamford, CT and London, UK: JAI Press. Fox, A. (1974). Beyond Contract: Work, Power and Trust Relations. London: Faber. Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481-510. Grant, D. (1999). HRM, rhetoric and the psychological contract: a case of 'easier said than done'. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 10(2), 327-350. Guest, D. (1987). Human resource management and industrial relations. Journal of Management Studies, 24(5), 503-521. Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C. (1993). Strategy as stretch and leverage. Harvard Business Review, 71(2), 75-84. Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C. (2003). Competing for the Future. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Hedlund, G. (2003). A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 73-90. Hill, C. and Jones, T. (1992) Stakeholder-agency theory. Journal of Management Studies, 29(2), 131-154. Hoskisson, R., Hitt, M., Wan, W. and Yiu, D. (1999). Theory and research in strategic management: swings of a pendulum. Journal of Management, 25(3), 417-456. Huselid, M. (2002). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38(3), 635-672. Ichniowski, C., Shaw, K. and Prennushi, G. (1997). The effects of human resource management practices on productivity: a study of steel finishing lines. American Economic Review, 87(3), 291-313. Jensen, M. and Meckling, W. (1976). Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305-360. Kamoche, K. (2001). Strategic human resource management within a resource-capability view of the firm. Journal of Management Studies, 33(2), 213-233. Kamoche, K. and Mueller, F. (1998). Human resource management and the appropriation-learning perspective. Human Relations, 51(8), 1033-1060. Kaplan, R. and Norton, D. (2001). The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Koch, M. and McGrath, R. (2001). Improving labor productivity: human resource management policies do matter. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 335-354. Kochan, T. (1999). Beyond myopia: human resources and the changing social contract. In Wright, P., Dyer, L., Boudreau, J. and Milkovich, G. (eds), Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management (Supplement 4: Strategic Human Resources Management in the Twenty-First Century). Stamford, CT and London, UK: JAI Press. Legge, K. (1978). Power, Innovation, and Problem-solving in Personnel Management. London: McGraw-Hill. Lees, S. (1997). HRM and the legitimacy market. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8(3), 226-243. Leonard, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: a paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 111-125. Leonard, D. (1998). Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Lepak, D. and Snell, S. (1999). The human resource architecture: toward a theory of human capital allocation and development. Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 31-48. Lowe, J., Delbridge, R. and Oliver, N. (2001). High performance manufacturing: evidence from the automotive components industry. Paper presented at the Employment Research Unit Conference, Cardiff University. MacDuffie, J. (2002). Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance: organizational logic and flexible production systems in the world auto industry. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48(2), 197-221. Mahoney, J. and Pandian, J. (1992). The resource-based view within the conversation of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 13(5), 363-380. Marchington, M. and Grugulis, I. (2000). 'Best practice' human resource management: perfect opportunity or dangerous illusion International Journal of Human Resource Management, forthcoming. McWilliams, A. and Smart, D. 2002. The resource-based view of the firm: does it go far enough in shedding the assumptions of the S-C-P paradigm Journal of Management Inquiry, 4(4), 309-316. Miller, D. (1981). Toward a new contingency approach: the search for organizational gestalts. Journal of Management Studies, 18(1), 1-26. Miller, D. (1992). Generic strategies; classification, combination and context. Advances in Strategic Management, 8, 391-408. Mintzberg, H. (1978). Patterns in strategy formation. Management Science, 24(9), 934-948. Mueller, F. (2001). Human resources as strategic assets; an evolutionary resource-based theory. Journal of Management Studies, 33(6), 757-785. Nelson, R. (1991). Why do firms differ, and how does it matter Strategic Management Journal, 12, 61-74. Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (2002). The Knowledge-Creating Company. New York: Oxford University Press. Nord, S. (1999). Sectoral productivity and the distribution of wages. Industrial Relations, 38(2), 215-230. Oliver, C. (1997). Sustainable competitive advantage: combining institutional and resource-based views. Strategic Management Journal, 18(9), 697-713 Osterman, P. (1987). Choice of employment systems in internal labor markets. Industrial Relations, 26(1), 46-67. Osterman, P. (2003). How common is workplace transformation and who adopts it Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 47(2), 173-188. Penrose, E. (1959). The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Oxford: Blackwell. Peteraf, M. and Shanley, M. (1997). Getting to know you: a theory of strategic group identity. Strategic Management Journal, 18(S), 165-186. Pfeffer, J. (2003). Competitive Advantage Through People. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Pfeffer, J. (1998). The Human Equation: Building Profits by Putting People First. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Pil, F. and MacDuffie, J. (2001). The adoption of high-involvement work practices. Industrial Relations, 35(3), 423-455. Pinfield, L. and Berner, M. (2003). Employment systems: toward a coherent conceptualisation of internal labor markets. In Ferris, G. (ed.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 12. Stamford, CT and London, UK: JAI Press, pp. 41-78. Porter, M. (1985). Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. New York: Free Press. Porter, M. (1990). The Competitive Advantage of Nations. London: Macmillan. Porter, M. (1991). Towards a dynamic theory of strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 12(S), 95-117. Purcell, J. (1987). Mapping management styles in employee relations. Journal of Management Studies, 24(5), 533-548. Purcell, J. (2001). Contingent workers and human resource strategy: rediscovering the core/periphery dimension. Journal of Professional HRM, 5, 16-23. Purcell, J. (1999a). High commitment management and the link with contingent workers: implications for strategic human resource management. In Wright, P., Dyer, L., Boudreau, J. and Milkovich, G. (eds), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management (Supplement 4: Strategic Human Resources Management in the Twenty-First Century). Stamford, CT and London, UK: JAI Press. Purcell, J. (1999b). 'Best practice' and 'best fit': chimera or cul-de-sac Human Resource Management Journal, 9(3), 26-41. Purcell, J. and Ahlstrand, B. (2003). Human Resource Management in the Multidivisional Company. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reed, R. and DeFillippi, R. (1990). Causal ambiguity, barriers to imitation, and sustainable competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 15(1), 88-102. Robinson, S. and Rousseau, D. (2003) Violating the psychological contract: not the exception but the norm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 245-259. Rumelt, R. (1987). Theory, strategy and entrepreneurship. In Teece, D. (ed.), The Competitive Challenge. New York: Harper & Row. Schein, E. (1997). Increasing organizational effectiveness through better human resource planning and development. Sloan Management Review, 19(1), 1-20. Schuler, R. and Jackson, S. (1987). Linking competitive strategies and human resource management practices. Academy of Management Executive, 1(3), 207-219. Snell, S. and Dean, J. (1992). Integrated manufacturing and human resources management: a human capital perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 35(3), 467-504. Teece, D., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533. Veliyath, R. and Srinavasan, T. (2002). Gestalt approaches to assessing strategic coalignment: a conceptual integration. British Journal of Management, 6(3), 205-219. Walton, R.E., Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J.E. and McKersie, R.B. (2003). Strategic Negotiations: a Theory of Change in Labor-Management Relations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Weinstein, M. and Kochan, T. (2002). The limits of diffusion: recent developments in industrial relations and human resource practices in the United States. In Locke, R., Kochan, T. and Piore, M. (eds), Employment Relations in a Changing World Economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171-180. Wever, K. (2002). Negotiating Competitiveness: Employment Relations and Organizational Innovation in Germany and the United States. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Wood, S. (2001). High commitment management and payment systems. Journal of Management Studies, 33(1), 53-77. Wood, S. (1999). Human resource management and performance. International Journal of Management Reviews, 1(4), 367-413. Wright, P., McMahan, G. and McWilliams, A. (2003). Human resources and sustained competitive advantage: a resource-based perspective. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 5(2), 301-326. Wright, P. and Snell, S. (1998). Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibility in strategic human resource management. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 756-772. Youndt, M., Snell, S., Dean, J. and Lepak, D. (2001). Human resource management, manufacturing strategy, and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 836-866. Zack, M. (1999). Developing a knowledge strategy. California Management Review, 41(3), 125-145. Read More