human resource mangemnet

http://jom.sagepub.com

Journal of Management

DOI: 10.1177/014920639902500306 1999; 25; 385 Journal of Management

Frink Gerald R. Ferris, Wayne A. Hochwarter, M. Ronald Buckley, Gloria Harrell-Cook and Dwight D.

Human Resources Management: Some New Directions

http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/25/3/385 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Southern Management Association

can be found at:Journal of Management Additional services and information for

http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://jom.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/25/3/385SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):

(this article cites 75 articles hosted on the Citations

© 1999 Southern Management Association. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. at Middlesex University on December 7, 2007 http://jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://www.southernmanagement.org/

http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://jom.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/25/3/385


Human Resources Management: SomeNew Directions

Gerald R. FerrisUniversity of Mississippi

Wayne A. HochwarterUniversity of Alabama

M. Ronald BuckleyUniversity of Oklahoma

Gloria Harrell-CookMississippi State University

Dwight D. FrinkUniversity of Mississippi

The theory, research, and practice of Human Resource Manage-ment (HRM) has evolved considerably over the past century, andexperienced a major transformation in form and function primarilywithin the past two decades. Driven by a number of significant internaland external environmental forces, HRM has progressed from a largelymaintenance function, with little if any bottom line impact, to what manyscholars and practitioners today regard asthe source of sustainedcompetitive advantage for organizations operating in a global economy.In this 25th anniversaryYearly Reviewissue, we conduct a less com-prehensive and more focused review of the field of HRM. In doing so, weattempt to articulate some key concepts and issues that can be produc-tively integrated with HRM to provide some interesting and importantdirections for future work, and consider ways to bridge the gap betweenthe science and practice of HRM. © 1999 Elsevier Science Inc. Allrights reserved.

This 1999 Yearly Reviewmarks the 25th anniversary of theJournal ofManagement, and indeed, over this quarter century, the organizational scienceshave witnessed an evolution of this journal from start-up phase to its present statusas one of the well-respected publications in the field. It is on this auspiciousoccasion that we take the opportunity to review the evolution, developments, anddirections in the field of Human Resource Management (HRM). If we target the

Direct all correspondence to: Gerald R. Ferris, School of Business Administration, University of Mississippi,University, MS 38677.

Journal of Management1999, Vol. 25, No. 3, 385–415

Copyright © 1999 by Elsevier Science Inc. 0149-2063

385



year 1920 as when many believe the first formal HRM function and departmentwas initiated, then the field is nearly 80 years old. During this 80-year period,there have been considerable changes in both the science and practice of HRM.

We wish to accomplish several objectives in this review. First, because morecomprehensive, traditional reviews of the field have been published elsewhere inrecent years, we do not wish to simply duplicate these. Instead we attempt toprovide a more focused analysis of the field, articulating key directions for futurework. Relying largely upon major reviews, including previousYearly Reviewarticles, we extract key areas of inquiry and use these as organizing mechanismsfor closer examination in subsequent sections, focusing on the current status ofwork in each of these critical areas. Next, we articulate several important conceptsand issues in the organizational sciences that have interesting integrative potentialwith HRM to produce innovative and insightful streams of research. Some ofthese have already been suggested and are underway, whereas others are newerideas, but all could profit from more extensive development. Finally, we providea wrap-up and some final thoughts on the present and future nature of the scienceand practice of HRM.

Evolution of Theory, Research, and Practice

The Human Resource Management (HRM) function, once responsible forrecord-keeping and maintenance, has evolved into a strategic partner, sharingcomparable boardroom status with disciplines such as accounting, marketing, andfinance (Dulebohn, Ferris, & Stodd, 1995). Despite the fact that alternativeperspectives regarding the limited contribution of HRM have been suggested(Stewart, 1996a, 1996b), a positive relationship between the development ofHRM as a strategic ally and company performance has been shown (Huselid,1995; Huselid, Jackson, & Schuler, 1997; Plevel, Lane, Schuler, & Nellis, 1995;Schuler & Jackson, 1987). In line with practice has been HRM research that hasgrown from its largely atheoretical origins to view organizational activities froman interdisciplinary perspective (Jennings, 1994; Wright & McMahan, 1992),concerned with a progression toward methodological and theoretical development(Ferris & Judge, 1991). Significant reviews of the literature chronicle both thedevelopment of the HRM function, as well as the evolution of research designedto explain this phenomenon (Fisher, 1989; Jackson & Schuler, 1995; Mahoney &Deckop, 1986; Snell, Youndt, & Wright, 1996).

Recently, the study of HRM has adopted a cross-functional approach that hasexpanded its breadth of analysis beyond the functional tasks of selection, training,compensation, and performance appraisal. One line of research, the strategichuman resource management (SHRM) perspective, attempts to align HRM func-tions and activities with the overarching strategic goals of the organization(Butler, Ferris, & Napier, 1991). The international perspective acknowledges theimportance of the global economy, as well as emphasizes the value of designingHR activities that address cross-cultural concerns (Napier, Tibau, Janssens, &Pilenzo, 1995). Finally, the political view assumes that unwritten, informalactivities may have consequential effects on the design and implementation of

386 HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 25, NO. 3, 1999



HRM programs (Pfeffer, 1989). Whereas each of these programs of research isimportant and distinct in its own regard, they share a common characteristic.Namely, research in these areas is relatively new and has historically not had thebenefit of a richly developed theoretical base to build upon. However, this trendappears to be changing as researchers have arduously developed conceptualmodels of HRM that have moved research away from its atheoretical origins.

In this section, we reexamine the comprehensive reviews of the HRMliterature that have been published, with greater emphasis on those that havesurfaced over the last 15 years. A survey ofall reviews, as well as an inspectionof all major directions of HRM research that have occurred over this time frame,extends beyond the scope of this article. Rather, the focus of the current reviewis to limit our discussion to major trends that have helped shape current modes ofthinking in the substantive areas that are discussed more fully in the remainingsections of this review. Specifically, the paper unfolds as follows. First, we brieflyreview research that provided the groundwork for contemporary studies in theareas of strategic HRM, international HRM, and political influences on HRM,which appear to be the three dominant perspectives that theory and research inHRM have taken in the past 15 years. Second, we examine more current reviewsthat have addressed these important topics (Ferris & Judge, 1991; Fisher, 1989;Jackson & Schuler, 1995; Mahoney & Deckop, 1986; Wright & McMahan, 1992).Finally, we provide a discussion of the “state-of-the-art” research that has ex-tended the body of literature in these substantive areas. Included in this finaldiscussion are prescriptions for integrating interdisciplinary work into futureresearch and suggestions for moving the science and practice of HRM into thenext millenium.

Excellent reviews of theory and research on specific HRM practices (e.g.,selection, performance appraisal, etc.) have been published in recent years in thevolumes of theHandbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, theAnnual Review of Psychology, theResearch in Personnel and Human ResourcesManagementseries, and other outlets. We see no reason to duplicate thosereviews here. Instead, we take a more focused approach on particular issues andthemes in HRM that have emerged in recent years, and which we feel can lead thefield in productive directions.

Theoretical Foundations

Most of the early reviews of the literature were published by notableindustrial psychologists, such as Shartle (1950), Brown and Ghiselli (1952), andHarrell (1953). As a consequence, these reviews tended to emphasize appliedindividual-level issues, such as employee testing, training, and motivation. How-ever, even at these early stages of development, precursors of what many considersignificant contemporary trends in the HRM domain were defined. For example,Gilmer’s (1960) discussion of situational variables explicated the importance ofmatching personnel strategies with organizational strategies. Further, Gilmer(1960) invited researchers to design measures to assess the relationship between“individual personalities” and “company personalities” (p. 337). These contribu-tions, as well as those provided by organizational theorists some years later (e.g.,

387G.R. FERRIS ET AL.




Barney, 1991; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Miles & Snow, 1978), laid the theoreticalfoundation for the macro-level HRM (i.e., strategic human resource management)research that has proliferated in much of the current literature (Huselid, 1995;Wright & McMahan, 1992).

This era also brought into focus country-level differences with respect to thedevelopment of HRM. For example, Ferguson (1961) reviewed the expansion ofHRM activities in the United States, while Farmer (1958) traced the growth ofpractice in England. Further, Harrell (1953) suggested that the political atmo-sphere of the country in which an organization resides significantly impacted bothresearch and practice during the early years of the field. Although these reviewswere not comparative in nature, they did illustrate that different regions of theworld are more (or less) concerned with some HRM activities than others.Moreover, these early reviews provided scholars a point of reference whenconducting research assessing cultural implications of HRM (MacDuffie & Kraf-cik, 1992; Mendonca & Kanungo, 1994).

Related to current research assessing the impact of organizational politics onHRM, Gellerman (1959) outlined the steps necessary to identify influentialindividuals and made suggestions regarding the tactics used to persuade others.Moreover, researchers acknowledged the value of understanding the “informal” aswell as “formal” elements of organizations (Cicourel, 1958). Later, Mintzberg(1983) described politics as “individual or group behavior that is informal,ostensibly parochial, typically divisive, and above all, in the technical sense,illegitimate—sanctioned neither by formal authority, accepted ideology, nor cer-tified expertise. . . ” (p. 172).

Clearly, strategic, international, and political perspectives of HRM representthree of the most significant areas of practical and theoretical concern on whichtheory and research in HRM has focused in the past decade and a half. As such,comprehensive reviews of the HRM literature have focused a great deal ofattention surveying the existing body of literature, as well as prescribing mech-anisms for extending research in these important areas. In the following sections,research published subsequent to these prior reviews is examined, and futureresearch directions are offered that may help the field grow even more briskly thanit has in the past.

Strategic Perspective on Human Resources Management

Over the past 10 or 15 years, numerous theoreticians have argued that thehuman resources of the firm are potentially the sole source of sustainable com-petitive advantage for organizations (e.g., Dyer, 1993; Pfeffer, 1994; Snell et al.,1996; Wright & McMahan, 1992). These works have drawn on the resource basedview of the firm (Barney, 1991, 1995) and have argued that few of the moretraditional sources of sustainable competitive advantage (e.g., technology, accessto financial resources) create value in a manner that is rare, nonimitable, andnonsubstituable. The nuances of the human resource value creation process,however, are extremely difficult, if not impossible for competitors to imitate, asthey are path dependent and causally ambiguous. That is, the complexities createdthrough the social and historical embeddedness of the human resource value





creation process cannot be reverse engineered or easily teased out. This valuecreation process does meet the criteria for a source of sustainable competitiveadvantage as set forth by the resource based view of the firm. This argumentjustifiably focused academic attention on the competitive imperative to strategi-cally manage the human resources of the firm.

Consequently, a field of inquiry began to emerge that actually billed itself asresearch in strategic human resource management (SHRM). Whereas numerousstudies in this area have provided substantial empirical and theoretical contribu-tions to the field of HRM, this area of investigation is still in its infancy, withscholars only recently trying to reach some common theoretical and empiricalground on which to build. Perhaps never before has Mahoney and Deckop’s(1986) commentary on the fragmented nature of HRM research been moreapplicable than to this area of work.

Whereas the entire area of exploration is deemed to be strategic in nature, themeaning of “strategic” takes on various definitions in the literature. For instance(and addressed at more length in following paragraphs), some researchers havefocused merely on the relationship of various human resource practices andsystems to firm performance and have labeled this relationship as strategic in thesense that it is extremely important to the organization’s objectives of profitabilityand viability. On the other hand, some research has delved into examinations of“fit” of various human resource practices and systems with the organization’scompetitive strategy—a quite different notion of “strategic” conceptually. Itcomes as no surprise, then, that there is little coherence among empirical resultsin the field.

Chadwick and Cappelli (1999) articulate both the current state of affairs inSHRM research, and the potential reasons for the lack of consensus reflected inempirical work in this area. They argue that all current approaches to SHRMresearch are strategic in the sense that they focus on the relationship between setsor systems of HRM practices and policies, and organizational outcomes. Thisawareness contrasts earlier research that was concerned primarily with individualHRM practices and their contributions to variance explained in some organiza-tional level outcome. Chadwick and Cappelli maintain, however, that researchershave different goals with regard to their particular research in SHRM, andconsequently there is considerable variance in the operationalization of the term“strategic.” Three approaches to SHRM research are examined.

The first stream of research is strategic in the sense that it is concernedsimply with the contribution of HRM to the financial performance of the firm.Chadwick and Cappelli (1999) speculate that this body of work is deemedstrategic because it examines a chief strategic concern of organizations (i.e., thebottom line). A second approach to SHRM is concerned with organizations’strategic choices in managing their competitive environments, and the manner inwhich these choices are reflected in the firms’ HRM systems. The third approachidentified by the authors investigates the degree of “fit” between organizationalstrategy and the sets of HRM practices and policies of the firm. In these studies,it is assumed that “external fit” (i.e., fit with strategy) and “internal fit” (i.e.,consistencies and synergies among practices) have an impact on organizational





outcomes. Consequently, these studies examine the degree to which sets of HRMpractices and policies are congruent with those deemed to be most appropriate fortheir strategic type. Given these different approaches to SHRM, it is evident thata more consolidated field of investigation would be beneficial to the developmentof knowledge in this area. Despite shortcomings, however, investigations to datehave shown SHRM to be an intriguing and abundantly fruitful area for research.

Huselid’s (1995) work reflects what has come to be known as the “univer-salistic” approach to SHRM, and it is indicative of the first approach outlined inthe Chadwick and Cappelli (1999) categorization. This perspective assumes thatthere are certain “best” HRM practices that will contribute to increased financialperformance, regardless of the strategic goals of the firm. Whereas other scholarshave concurred with this assumption (e.g., Delaney, Lewin, & Ichniowski, 1989;Osterman, 1994; Pfeffer, 1994), there has been little work that provides adefinitive prescription as to which HRM practices should be included in a “best”practices system. Delaney et al. (1989), for example, utilized 10 practices thatrelated to selection, performance appraisal, incentive compensation, job design,grievance procedures, information sharing, attitude assessment, and labor-man-agement participation. Huselid (1995) added three additional practices to the list:recruiting intensity, average training hours per year, and the criteria for promo-tion. Pfeffer (1994), however, advocated the use of 16 management practices toachieve higher productivity and profits.

In recent work, Delery and Doty (1996) identified seven practices consis-tently considered to be “strategic” in nature. Practices identified were internalcareer opportunities, formal training systems, appraisal measures, profit sharing,employment security, voice mechanisms, and job definition. These practices wereutilized in several analyses to test the soundness of the three dominant theoreticalperspectives in the HRM-firm performance literature: the universalistic, contin-gency, and configurational perspectives. Results of the analyses provided somesupport for each of the three perspectives.

A number of theoreticians and researchers, however, have argued that acontingency perspective is the more appropriate approach to SHRM (e.g., Butleret al., 1991; Dyer, 1985; Dyer & Holder, 1988; Dyer & Reeves, 1995; Lengnick-Hall & Lengnick-Hall, 1988; Milkovich, 1988; Schuler, 1989; Jackson & Schuler,1995). The contingency approach differs from the universalistic perspective inthat the studies have attempted to link HRM systems and the complementarity ofvariations of HRM practices to specific organizational strategies (e.g., Arthur,1994; Youndt, Snell, Dean, & Lepak, 1996). Schuler (Schuler, 1989; Schuler &Jackson, 1987) argued that HRM practices which are not synergistic and consis-tent with organizational strategy, and which conflict (i.e., with regard to intendedoutcomes) with other HRM practices are confounding in effect, and createambiguity that can inhibit both individual and organizational performance.

A closely related body of work calls for a configurational approach toSHRM, and argues that it is the pattern of HRM practices that contribute to theattainment of organizational goals (Wright & McMahan, 1992). Similar to thecontingency approach, the configurational approach argues that fit of HRMpractices with organizational strategy is a vital factor in the HRM-firm perfor-





mance relationship. However, the configurational approach takes this argument astep further in asserting that there are specific “ideal types” of HRM systems thatprovide both horizontal and vertical fit of HRM practices to organizationalstructure and strategic goals. More specifically, there are certain, specific systemsof HRM practices that result in the highest internal consistency and complemen-tarity (horizontal fit), as well as congruence with organizational goals (vertical fit).The configuration of practices that provides the tightest horizontal and vertical fitwith any given strategy, then, would be the ideal type for an organization pursuingthat particular strategy (Delery & Doty, 1996). Contingency theorists, generally,have not gone so far as to prescribe these ideal types.

All approaches are plagued by many of the same limitations. As noted inprevious work (e.g., Becker & Gerhart, 1996; Chadwick & Cappelli, 1999; Dyer& Reeves, 1995), there is little consensus among researchers with regard toprecisely which HRM practices should be included. Is there a single “ideal type”of HRM system that is universally effective, or does it depend on the strategy ofthe firm? Further, if the match of the HRM system to strategy does indeed matter,what HRM practice bundles are appropriate for achieving fit to the variousstrategies investigated (Wright & Sherman, 1999)? There are glaring discrepan-cies in the prescriptions made by different scholars in this area. Becker andGerhart (1996) pointed to internal promotion systems and formal grievanceprocedures as examples of this inconsistency. Some studies have regarded theseHRM practices as “best” or “high performance” practices, whereas others havenoted the association of these practices with unionization, and have categorizedthem as components of bureaucratic HRM systems (Wright & Sherman, 1999).

A related area that remains relatively uninvestigated is whether environmen-tal and contextual factors constrain the availability or suitability of HRM systemcontent, and how the effects of these constraints play out at the individual andorganizational levels. Jackson and Schuler (1995) suggested that variations incontextual factors act as constraints on (or enhancements of) the system of HRMpractices that may be available or appropriate for implementation in any givenorganization. They argued that HRM systems may be contingent upon, anddirected by, these contextual factors. More specifically, whereas most of theprevious research in the HRM area has focused on “high performance practices”or “best practices” as the generic solution to HRM issues, they suggested that thismay not be the case.

Certain practices and groups of practices may be more or less effective in theattainment of both individual and organizational outcomes in varying contexts.Further, the implementation of some practices may be totally infeasible given theexistence of contextual constraints. Organizational structure and culture, forinstance, may pose such constraints. If the structure of the organization is highlyhierarchical with an accompanying bureaucratic culture, it is unlikely that partic-ipative management could be successfully implemented without significantchanges in that structure and culture. Not only is such a structure not conduciveto the effectiveness and success of a participative management program, but linesof authority and chains of command might also inhibit the acceptance of such apractice by both labor and management. The potential for contextual constraints





on the composition of HRM systems poses interesting questions for futureresearch.

Another troublesome area in SHRM research concerns the measures ofstrategy used in the studies to date. Whereas inconsistencies in operationalizationof HRM systems contribute to the lack of congruity across studies, differences inthe measures of strategy used may also account for the lack of consensus inresults. Recent conceptual pieces have been critical of researchers in this area,suggesting that they have incorporated antiquated notions of firm strategy (e.g.,Chadwick & Cappelli, 1999; Wright & Sherman, 1999; Wright & Snell, 1998).Most studies have utilized such typologies as those of Porter (1980) or Miles andSnow (1978). These generic categorizations have little in common with therealities of the modern competitive environment with which organizations areconfronted. First, categorizations are exclusive, assuming that organizations pur-sue a certain strategic goal while ignoring other strategic concerns. Second, theydepict the competitive environment, and consequently organizational strategy, asbeing static instead of dynamic.

There is much evidence that neither of these two assumptions is valid. Thesetypologies assume a specific and narrow strategic positioning of the organization.Whereas organizations may concentrate, to some lesser or greater extent, on anyof these particular strategies, there is anecdotal and empirical evidence that manyfactors are strategic considerations in modern organizations (e.g., DeMeyer,Nakane, Miller, & Ferdows, 1989; Harper, 1992). Results of examinations as-suming such a restricted view of strategy are necessarily limited. As suggested byChadwick and Cappelli (1999), future tests of the HRM-strategy relationshipmight be better served by considering strategy to be along a continuum, involvinga number of strategic factors that are seen by the organization to be more or lessimportant as competitive priorities. Research of this nature might provide furtherinsight into the lack of consensus among results that currently exists in theliterature.

The assumption of a static competitive environment, and consequently astatic organizational strategy is also an issue that is being increasingly questioned.There is evidence that very few firms operate in static, stable environments.Instead, firms are faced with multiple competitive pressures to which they mustrespond, and these pressures change rapidly, requiring continual adaptation if anorganization is to remain viable. The fact that organizational environments aredynamic has evoked much speculation about the prescription for tight fit of HRMsystems with any particular strategic goal. Chadwick and Cappelli (1999) pointedout the dysfunctionality of external fit in arguing that as fit to external conditionsbecomes closer or tighter, this can become more problematic as competitionchanges. Embedded systems and structures are difficult to change under anycircumstances, and the greater the intermeshing or fit of such systems, the moreentrenched they become, and the more difficult they are to modify.

Increasingly, the field of SHRM is recognizing this need for organizationalflexibility, through “flexible HRM systems” or “flexibility-enhancing” HRMsystems (Harrell-Cook, 1999), and this appears to be an area in need of furtherresearch and development. Wright and Snell (1998) noted that fit and flexibility





have been depicted by some researchers as opposite ends of the spectrum. Theyadopt the complementary perspective of Milliman, Von Glinow, and Nathan(1991), however, and argue that both fit and flexibility are necessary to organi-zational effectiveness. We would carry their argument one step further, andcontend that, for firms in highly turbulent environments, flexibility is imperativein order to achieve fit of employee and organizational capabilities with changingcompetitive priorities. Future research in SHRM should consider that strategy isdynamic in unstable environments. Moreover, examinations into HRM practicesand systems that provide the firm with the capabilities to swiftly and easily adaptto changing environmental demands should be conducted.

Further, investigations into the HRM-strategy link have almost exclusivelyfocused on predominant intended strategy of the firm and assumed that theprofessed intended strategy is equivalent to the emergent or realized strategy.Examinations based on that assumption are inherently flawed, as it is an assump-tion that must certainly prove to hold for few, if any, firms in today’s intenselyunstable competitive environment. Further, most studies of the HRM-strategy linkpresume that the intended strategy is uniformly known and understood throughoutthe organization. Given this uniformity in understanding, HRM professionalshave the knowledge and ability to implement policies and practices that would bemost effective in achieving strategic goals (an assumption that ignores boundedrationality). The foregoing assumptions are questionable, and should receiveconsideration in future research in SHRM.

Another issue posed, but as yet unaddressed, is to what extent do the variouspractices in HRM systems have differential impact on organizational effective-ness, including not only financial performance, but also success in implementingorganizational strategy, and achievement of strategic goals. Typically, studieshave used an additive measure, combining the specific practices into an un-weighted composite. It has been argued that aggregating the data into a compositeis appropriate as firms can improve their performance by either increasing thenumber of HRM practices that they have in place, or by increasing the number ofemployees to whom these practices apply (MacDuffie, 1995; Youndt et al., 1996).However, if there is a differential impact of various HRM practices on firmperformance, the absence (or presence) of any particular practice would have agreater (or lesser) effect on results than is indicated by equal weighting.

A related issue concerns the operationalization of HRM practices in thesestudies. Specifically, the measures used to date have been very generic in nature.For instance, most studies have asked only the extent to which organizationsutilize “formal performance appraisals.” However, the use of “formal perfor-mance appraisals” can mean very different things in different HRM systems. Arethe performance appraisals developmental in nature? Do they include co-workeror customer input? Are forced rankings used? Are appraisals reflective of tradi-tional subjective supervisory ratings? Certainly, the type of appraisal most con-ducive to achieving organizational goals would vary across organizational con-texts. The generic “formal appraisal” is thereby limited in the amount ofinformation it conveys. The same is true of generic measures of selectionmethods, reward systems, and other HRM practices. More definitive constructs





would provide richer information and insight into the effectiveness of thesepractices and their appropriateness given variance in organizational goals.

An issue of further concern is that of HRM effectiveness. There are twoperspectives of HRM effectiveness in need of theoretical and empirical attention:(1) the effectiveness with which HRM policies and practices are implemented;and (2) the effectiveness of these policies and practices in producing desiredresults. The only study to date examining these issues was conducted with regardto the second perspective. Huselid (1995) found a positive relationship betweenHRM capabilities and overall HRM effectiveness, as well as a positive impact ofHRM effectiveness on firm performance. Both measures of HRM capabilities andHRM effectiveness, however, were determined through surveys of senior HRMexecutives. As the potential for bias exists in such measures, other studiesutilizing multiple respondents are needed to bolster these findings.

A related question is “effectiveness with regard to what?” Does effectivenessmean primarily firm financial performance? Stockholder satisfaction? Or, arethere other measures of effectiveness that need to be considered in order to obtaina more comprehensive understanding of the impact of HRM systems? Manytheoreticians have suggested that a balanced scorecard approach offers the po-tential for a more appropriate measure of effectiveness. This approach focuses onmultiple stakeholders including investors, customers, and employees, and it hasbeen proposed as a more complete measure of total performance (Ulrich, 1997).The assessment of effectiveness is simply one more example of conceptualizationand measurement issues with which future researchers will be confronted.

A final issue, and one that is perhaps most integral to our understanding ofthe HRM-firm performance relationship is that of the “black box.” More specif-ically, if there is indeed an impact of HRM systems on firm performance, how dothese effects occur? What are the mechanisms through which these effectsmanifest themselves? Do these effects vary under different levels of contextual orenvironmental factors? These questions call for theory refinement and the devel-opment of more comprehensive theoretical models of the HRM-firm performancerelationship that include intermediate linkages and boundary conditions. A recentattempt to more precisely articulate these intermediate linkages and processes wasproposed by Ferris et al. (1998). They developed a social context theory of theHRM-organization effectiveness relationship which suggests some specific direc-tions for research in this area. Further, empirical investigations of such models,testing for mediation (intermediate linkages) and moderation (boundary condi-tions) would greatly enhance our understanding of the dynamics of the HRM-firmeffectiveness link. More definitive empirical validation of the “hows” and “whys”of this relationship might also prove to be the most convincing evidence topractitioners of the value of the HRM function. As such, this type of researchshould be given a high priority by HRM scholars.

International Human Resource Management

There has been a dramatic increase in interest in the management of humanresources in an international context, such as in multinational organizations. Formany years, International Human Resource Management (IHRM) researchers and





practitioners grappled with the convergence/divergence dichotomy. Many be-lieved that the key to IHRM was to apply those concepts developed and successfulin the United States to an international context. This was superseded (correctly)by the divergence approach that recognized the influence of myriad culturalvariables in the management of human resources in an international context andthe need to develop different perspectives for different cultures. Those whopractice and conduct research in IHRM must, according to Ricks, Toyne, andMartinez (1990), include several unique dimensions in their research and appli-cations. As opposed to domestic HRM research, IHRM researchers must be waryof the interaction of different cultural-based norms and social values, the adapt-ability of management issues from one culture to another, the legal and economicdifferences that exist, and the different learning styles and response styles due tosocio-cultural differences. As Dowling, Schuler, and Welch (1994) have sug-gested, the complexities of operating in diverse countries and the necessity ofemploying different national categories of workers is the main point of differen-tiation between domestic HRM and IHRM. Organizations engaged in interna-tional HRM must become intimately involved in the personal lives of employeesand help guide them through myriad institutions (e.g., governments, legal sys-tems, etc.).

In their literature review, Ricks et al. stated that many areas in IHRMresearch have suffered from either neglect or oversight, including “career devel-opment, termination of services, absenteeism, demotion, employee attitude, lead-ership patterns, control patterns, motivation, and job design” (1990: 222). Al-though there has been progress in some of these areas, the apparent shortcominghas continued through the past decade. An area in which there has been muchIHRM research is in the area Napier et al. (1995) have classified as employee-focused literature which examines issues relating to expatriate employees (Har-vey, 1989), inpatriation (Harvey & Buckley, 1997), and dual career issues(Harvey, 1996). Research findings continue to confirm the seminal conclusion ofTung (1987) that adjustment to a different cultural milieu is difficult fromnumerous perspectives. A second area that has stimulated considerable researchconcerns the functional areas of IHRM. Much of this research is centered upon theissues surrounding the selection, training, preparing of, appraising, and compen-sation of expatriates (Napier et al., 1995). A third area that has seen some progressis the development of an integrative paradigm of the IHRM process. Work bySchuler, Dowling, and DeCieri (1993), Taylor and Beechler (1993), and Taylor,Beechler, and Napier (1996) represent attempts to integrate the IHRM processinto the overall strategic planning of a multinational organization.

Recent reviews have suggested areas in which IHRM research should focus.Schuler and Florkowski (1996) suggested that more rigorous research designsmust be implemented. There is a need to move beyond the descriptive case studiesand frequency distributions that comprise a substantial portion of the researchreported in IHRM. They argued that IHRM “is still at a point where publishedfindings raise many more questions than they answer” (1996: 388). Further,Arvey, Bhagat, and Salas (1991) pointed out that this area is lacking in that IHRMresearchers have failed in their attempts to develop a theoretical perspective from





which predictions of behavior and explanations of observed behavior are moreparsimonious.

Despite the progress that has been made with respect to IHRM, the followingissues need to be considered in the next decade:

1. More work needs to be done to develop an integrative paradigm of theIHRM process. IHRM cannot stand alone. In addition, there is a com-plex set of environmental factors (e.g., legal issues) which have just notbeen well represented in extant models. Matching IHRM with optimalenvironmental issues will challenge researchers and practitioners formany years to come. IHRM may be able to perform an importantboundary spanning function in this regard.

2. Too many researchers have emphasized the multinational nature ofIHRM. We believe that this emphasis has been misplaced. This is aglobal issue and researchers and practitioners need to evolve through thecurrent country orientation to more of a global perspective. TreatingIHRM on a country-by-country basis fails to fall in line with the movetoward globalization, which is well underway. While we are aware thatthere are still many organizations which desire information about spe-cific countries, and that there may be between country differences, webelieve that these differences will become significantly less important.Country should not be the unit of analysis in IHRM research. Individualsshould be the important unit of analysis. IHRM researchers shouldemphasize individual responses and not individual, by country, re-sponses.

3. IHRM is still thought of as a group of separate and distinct processes.However, it is more than that, and researchers must change their per-spective to take into account the systematic interaction of IHRM activ-ities (Punnett & Ricks, 1992). IHRM should be conceptualized as ameans for global organizations to gain competitive differentiation andadvantage through people while implementing a more strategic approachto the use of human resources.

4. Future researchers need to evaluate the value added of IHRM to theglobal, behavioral, and financial competitiveness of organizations.Methods are available to determine these contributions.

5. The issue of information technology and its influence on IHRM has notreceived sufficient attention. This may result in many changes in boththe research and practice of IHRM.

Political Perspective on Human Resources Management

Whereas anecdotal evidence has indicated for quite some time that influenceand politics emerge to affect the operation and outcomes of HRM systems, it wasnot until a decade ago that HRM scholars provided systematic examination of thisarea (e.g., Ferris & Judge, 1991; Frost, 1989; Pfeffer, 1989). The finding thatimpressions can overshadow substance in HRM decisions has both theoretical andpractical importance (Ferris, Galang, Thornton, & Wayne, 1995), and suggests the





need to know much more about the nature and dynamics of such processes.Because the Ferris and Judge (1991)Yearly Reviewpiece was quite comprehen-sive, we simply provide an update of work published since then that takes apolitical perspective on HRM systems.

The political perspective on HRM issues has stimulated considerable re-search interest and activity among organizational scientists in recent years. Muchof the published research has tended to focus on how influence tactics and politicsaffect staffing/employment interview decisions, the performance evaluation pro-cess, and career success, so these categories are used to organize this review.

Staffing/employment interview decisions.Human resources staffing deci-sions are widely regarded as some of the most important decisions made inorganizations. Furthermore, a principal focus of staffing decisions is the employ-ment interview, so it is appropriate to examine this decision-making tool withrespect to influence and politics.

Research has continued on how influence tactics in the employment inter-view affect interviewer decisions, following some of the suggestions for futureresearch proposed by Ferris and Judge (1991). Kacmar, Delery, and Ferris (1992)conducted an investigation that was designed to assess the relative effectivenessof two types of influence tactics used by applicants on interviewer decisions. Theyfound that interviewers gave higher ratings and recommendations for job offers toapplicants who employed self-promotion tactics than those who used ingratiation-type tactics.

Howard and Ferris (1996) tested the model proposed by Ferris and Judge(1991), which examined influence tactics and their effects on HRM outcomesthrough the intermediate linkages of perceived similarity, affect, and perceivedcompetence. They found that nonverbal behaviors by applicants (e.g., eye contact,smiling, nodding) positively influenced interviewers’ judgments of applicants’competence which, in turn, had a significant path to job suitability ratings.Interestingly, self-promotion tactics by applicants not only did not help their case,but also demonstrated a negative path to perceptions of similarity. Finally,Howard and Ferris tested the notion proposed by Gilmore and Ferris (1989) thatinterviewers with more training and thus more preparation for the interviewcontext should be influenced less by impression management tactics of applicantsthan those with less training. Indeed, they found a significant interaction effectdemonstrating support for this contention.

In a carefully conducted investigation, Stevens and Kristof (1995) reportedevidence of applicant impression management effects in initial interviews onactual invitations for subsequent site visits. Furthermore, they noted the potentialdisparity in laboratory and field investigations of influence tactics used in theinterview, reporting that in actual interviews, they found that applicants usedself-promotion tactics extensively, but limited their use of ingratiation. Thesestudies representatively reflect the continued interest by researchers in howinfluence and politics affect interviewer decisions. A more extensive review ofthis area and directions for future research can be found in Gilmore, Stevens,Harrell-Cook, and Ferris (1999).





There is clear evidence that organizations today are highlighting the impor-tance of applicant “fit” to the job or organizational context as a selection criterion,where fit is measured by the perceived similarity or compatibility of the applicantto the environment (Kristof, 1996). Indeed, despite considerable research andpractical prescriptions aimed at structured interviews, Dipboye (1994) argued thata number of factors (including power and politics issues) have contributed to thedominance of unstructured interviews that focus on applicant fit. Furthermore,Judge and Ferris (1992) suggested that a continued focus on structured interviewsas a selection tool might be misdirected if the true goal and usefulness of theinterview is to assess the elusive and poorly defined notion of fit. Judge and Ferrisrecommend a dual assessment process whereby technical qualifications and fit tothe job can be best measured by tests and other objective procedures, whereas theinterview can best assess the fit of applicants to the values, goals, and culture ofthe organization. It is conceivable that structured interviews could be used toassess fit as long as the fit construct is carefully and precisely defined. Unfortu-nately, this task may be difficult to accomplish, and has eluded practitioners todate.

A challenge that is created by a focus on fit as a staffing criterion is that fittends to be not well-defined and it can be manipulated, managed, and shaped bythe conscious efforts of applicants and employees. Therefore, applicants in theinterview and employees in organizations can behave in ways designed to convey“good fit” to the organizations’ beliefs, values, and culture. Indeed, an interestingand related area of research focuses on the display of emotions in organizations,and effects on others. Arvey, Renz, and Watson (1998) discussed the role ofemotionality in personnel selection, and identified the potential complexities ofdistinguishing the false display of emotion aimed at enhancing perceived fit of theapplicant. Staw, Sutton, and Pelled (1994) suggested a challenge for research inthis area is to sort out the extent to which favorable outcomes are caused by thepositive affect associated with emotional displays, or by the actual use of ingra-tiation tactics. As work in this area progresses, it will be useful to isolate on therole of particular types of emotions, beyond simply positive and negative cate-gorizations. In this regard, theoretical work by scholars like Vecchio (1995) onemotions of jealousy and envy in the workplace provides important directions.

Performance evaluation process.Theory and research in recent years hasincreasingly acknowledged that supervisors rating employee performance maysubordinate the objective of accuracy to other more self-serving and politicalgoals and agenda (e.g., Cleveland & Murphy, 1992; Longenecker, Sims, & Gioia,1987; Villanova & Bernardin, 1989, 1991). This finding suggests that rating errorsmay not simply be errors of omission, but errors of commission as well. Addi-tionally, the importance of understanding how employee influence tactics affectsupervisor ratings of employee performance has increased in recent years (Ferris& Frink, 1997) as HRM scholars have demonstrated the importance of the socialcontext of the performance evaluation process (e.g., Judge & Ferris, 1993). In aneffort to model the social and political context of the performance evaluationprocess, Ferris, Judge, Rowland, and Fitzgibbons (1994) found that ingratiationhad positive effects and self-promotion had negative effects on performance





ratings through their effects on supervisor affect or liking. Interestingly, morecareful examination of the ingratiation tactics reveal behaviors like “favor doing”and “volunteering to do extra work” which appear to be much like what Bormanand Motowidlo (1993) identified as “contextual performance,” and what othershave referred to as organizational citizenship (Organ, 1988) or prosocial behaviors(Brief & Motowidlo, 1986). This suggests the need for future research to morecarefully delineate the nature and dimensions of employee job-related behaviorsand performance.

Because research on influence tactics in performance evaluation has beenpredominantly cross-sectional in nature, there has been a serious need to examinethe extent to which effects of influence tactics extend over time. Wayne and Liden(1995) conducted a longitudinal study and found that ingratiating types of influ-ence tactics positively affected subsequent ratings of employee performance bysupervisors through perceived similarity. Ingratiation also was related to super-visor affect toward employee, but affect did not demonstrate a significant path toperformance ratings. Interestingly, and contrary to the significant negative pathfor self-promotion reported by Ferris, Judge, Rowland, & Fitzgibbons (1994),Wayne and Liden found self-promotion to be unrelated to supervisor affect andoutcomes. Cross-sectional work has been important in this area, and we havelearned much about the immediate effects of influence tactics on HRM decisions.However, we desperately need more longitudinal research to address just how theeffects of influence tactics endure, dissipate, or even change over time in theireffects on outcomes.

Ferris and Judge (1991) suggested that scholars in this area expand theirinvestigations to consider the effects of different types of influence tactics in theperformance evaluation process. In particular, they argued that goal setting itselfmay be an impression management strategy. Thus, goals may be set for reasonsother than self-direction. Frink and Ferris (1998) examined goal setting underdifferent levels of accountability in the performance evaluation process and foundthat accountability influenced the extent to which goals were used for perfor-mance-directed versus impression management purposes. Specifically, goals andperformance were significantly related under conditions of low accountability, butdecoupled and unrelated under conditions of high accountability.

Career success. Career success is obviously a multidimensional construct,and typically manifests itself in research as involving such dimensions as pro-motions or promotability ratings, salary progression, and performance ratings.Recent theoretical work has articulated how the career progression and successprocess can be at least if not more symbolic and political than it is substantive(e.g., Cooper, Graham, & Dyke, 1993; Ferris, Fedor, & King, 1994), and thus thatenhancing one’s political skill can facilitate career outcomes.

Some research has specifically examined the role of influence and politics inthe promotion process. Ferris, Buckley, and Allen (1992) proposed and tested amodel of the antecedents and consequences of promotion systems, and reportedevidence that highlighted the importance of fit, political savvy, similarity ofinterests and values, and impression management. Thacker and Wayne (1995)conducted a study of influence tactics effects on supervisor assessments of





promotability. The results supported hypotheses that reasoning was positivelyrelated and assertiveness was negatively related to promotability. Contrary toprediction, ingratiation was negatively related to promotability perceptions.

Extending beyond just promotions, some research has investigated the role ofinfluence tactics on other aspects of career success. Judge and Bretz (1994) foundeffects of influence tactics on both extrinsic (salary, job level, number of promo-tions, etc.) and intrinsic (job and life satisfaction) career success. Interestingly,their findings are quite similar to the influence tactics results reported by Ferris,Judge et al. (1994) in that ingratiation tactics resulted in higher outcomes whileself-promotion tactics had a negative impact. Further, Kilduff and Day (1994), intheir examination of managerial career success, found that self-monitoring (oftenassociated with political skill and ability to influence) favorably affected careersuccess. Specifically, managers high on self-monitoring received more promo-tions and experienced greater career mobility than low self-monitors.

Finally, Wayne, Liden, Graf, and Ferris (1997) tested a model that examinedthe effects of six influence tactics (as measured by the Kipnis & Schmidt, 1982instrument) on performance ratings, promotability assessments, and salary pro-gression as mediated by the three intermediate linkages of affect, perceivedsimilarity, and competence suggested by Ferris and Judge (1991). Reasoning,assertiveness, and favor doing were positively related to mediator variables, andbargaining and self-promotion were negatively related. Manager perceptions ofemployee skills and perceptions of similarity, in turn, were related to careeroutcomes. Contrary to some previous research, affect or liking did not mediate thelinkages between influence tactics and outcomes.

A needed direction for future research in this area is to develop the notion of“political skill.” Jones (1990) asked the question (in discussing interpersonalinfluence): “What are the components that blend so effectively when we say thatsomeone has ‘style’?” (p. 199). So, it is not enough to simply examine the extentto which one demonstrates influence/political behavior. Additionally, we need tounderstand how effectively, sincerely, and genuinely they come across, which willcontribute to the success or failure of influence attempts. This involves developinga much better understanding of this style or political skill component.

Key Issues and Future Directions

Although the forgoing review provides an assessment of the progress oftheory and research to date in the three dominant perspective areas along whichHRM work has been conducted in recent years, we also would like to proposesome interesting and potentially quite important directions for future work inHRM. This section articulates a number of significant concepts and issues in theorganizational sciences that have interesting integrative potential with HRM toproduce innovative streams of work. Research on some of the concepts proposedbelow is already well underway, and progressing in some interesting directions,whereas other ideas proposed are quite new suggestions. Space constraints pre-vent us from developing these areas as fully as they need, but we feel that at least





raising some issues in each area might serve the purpose of stimulating furtherwork by HRM scholars.

Accountability and HRM

A number of recent works underscore the embeddedness of accountability inorganizational foundations in stark contrast to the scarce representation of thisconstruct in the organizational literature (Ferris, Mitchell, Canavan, Frink, &Hopper, 1995; Frink & Ferris, 1998; Frink & Klimoski, 1998). Theory andresearch on accountability holds substantial promise for the advancement of theHRM knowledge base, in part because many HRM functions can be defined asaccountability mechanisms, including selection, performance evaluations, andcompensation (Ferris et al., 1995).

Theory and research collectively indicate that accountability is more than amoderating mechanism that can prevent misdeeds in and by organizations (e.g.,Carnevale, 1985; Ferris, Mitchell et al., 1995; Frink & Klimoski, 1998; Mitchell,1993; Schlenker, 1997; Schlenker, Britt, Pennington, Murphy, & Doherty, 1994;Tetlock, 1985, 1992). Rather, it is a complex phenomenon encompassing a broadspectrum of social dynamics, and numerous areas call for research into theaccountability phenomenon. Empirical study has largely emphasized the pro-cesses used in coping with accountability conditions in laboratory contexts (e.g.,Adelberg & Batson, 1978; Brief, Dukerich, & Doran, 1991; Fandt, 1991; Frink &Ferris, in press; Gordon, Rozelle, & Baxter, 1988, 1989; Rozelle & Baxter, 1981;O’Connor, 1997; Tetlock & Boettger, 1989, 1994; Tetlock & Kim, 1987; Tetlock,Skitka, & Boettger, 1989). Results from these studies indicate the need forextensive research that advances knowledge both in this direction and in natural-istic settings. Four basic areas seem to be of immediate importance. First, researchis needed for support and development of contemporary accountability theory.Tenets of this theory include the notion that people anticipate accountabilities, andas a matter of routine or habit, evaluate their circumstances (especially in workcontexts) in terms of potential accountabilities. Another tenet concerns howpeople develop accountability perceptions. A third tenet concerns the presence ofmultiple audiences. Important questions include how we prioritize and managethese multiple sources of evaluation.

A fourth tenet concerns the salience of our perceptions of various account-abilities. Relevant questions include whether the influence is additive. For exam-ple, do we feel twice as accountable when we report to two audiences (e.g., acustomer and a supervisor) versus to a single audience? A second question iswhether the relationships are linear or nonlinear, which is a question of degrees,and can be articulated in terms of how accountabilities are perceived and howmuch is useful. In this vein, Ferris et al. (1997) found that increasing levels ofperceived accountability were positively correlated with increasing use of influ-ence tactics. A fifth tenet concerns the alignment of expectations from variousaudiences, focusing on how we periodically (or perhaps often) cope with con-flicting demands, or misaligned expectations.

The second basic area of need concerns understanding the relationships ofcontextual moderators and other phenomena with accountability conditions. Po-





tentially important moderators include audience characteristics, work contextcontingencies, job demands (e.g., time pressures, ambiguity, control, etc.), and soforth. Additionally, two related phenomena seem notable. First, accountabilityand organizational politics seem natural companions for providing interesting andrelevant information. Following Tetlock’s (1985, 1992) metaphor of the person asan intuitive politician, it seems natural to investigate the relationships betweenaccountability conditions (e.g., closer scrutiny, several evaluators) and politicalactivity. As noted earlier, Ferris et al. (1997) found increased use of impressionmanagement techniques to be positively correlated with increased feelings ofaccountability. The second is organizational justice. It is easy to envision possi-bilities of an interplay of accountability and both procedural and distributivejustice perceptions and also an influence of justice perceptions on how peoplerespond to accountability requirements as they see them.

The third basic area of need is that of individual differences in responding toaccountability. Frink and Ferris (in press) and Yarnold, Mueser, and Lyons (1988)have demonstrated moderating effects of personality variables (Conscientiousnessand Type A personality, respectively). One can easily develop hypotheses for theinfluences of various types of individual differences on accountability episodes.

The final area of research concerns the need to relate accountability specif-ically to HRM functions and concerns. As noted above, many, if not all, HRMfunctions can be cast as accountability mechanisms. Some work has been done inthis area, specifically in performance evaluations (e.g., Frink & Ferris, 1998;Klimoski & Inks, 1990; Mero & Motowidlo, 1995), but much more is needed.Interestingly, many public calls for accountability are related to HRM functions,such as CEO compensation (e.g., Crystal, 1991; Monks & Minow, 1991). Otherareas such as staffing and training have received little attention, but might proveto be fruitful areas of inquiry both for theory and practice (Frink & Klimoski,1998).

There has been some effort in recent years to model the phenomenon, andthese works can serve to provide conceptual underpinnings and frameworks tosupport and direct future work. Notable among these are a dynamic framework(Frink & Klimoski, 1998), static models (Cummings & Anton, 1990; Ferris et al.,1997; Ferris, Mitchell et al., 1995; Schlenker et al., 1994), and the theoreticalworks of Carnevale (1985) and Tetlock (1985, 1992).

Diversity and HRM

The dynamics of diversity are quite complex, and we have substantial gapsin our knowledge of diversity in organizations. Moreover, these gaps severelylimit our ability to make appropriate prescriptions, or even adequate descriptions.Current theories of diversity are largely extrapolated from group research with theassumption that group effects will aggregate to produce organization-level ben-efits. This is a reasonable hypothesis, but one that is untested. Several dynamicsare relevant to diversity in organizations at both group and organizational levels,however, there is a marked shortage of valid empirical research. Given that thebottom line effects of diversity are quite complex and dynamic (Morrisette, Frink,Robinson, & Reithel, 1998), these issues are critical.





Current trends. One approach to diversity concerns the social climate andsocial interaction patterns within the group. One dimension is group cohesiveness,and in general, cohesiveness should be easier in homogeneous groups (Ziller,1973). Another dimension concerns cultural differences that may occur betweenraces, such as viewing competition and cooperation among group membersdifferently. A third is the differences in how different people respond to organi-zational contingencies. For example, Konrad, Winter, and Gutek (1992) foundthat women who are in the minority are more likely to experience isolation anddissatisfaction with the organization.

A major underpinning of expected diversity benefits is the notion thatcreativity and judgment are improved in diverse workgroups versus homogeneousgroups (e.g., Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Hoffman & Maier, 1961; Kanter, 1983;McLeod, Lobel, & Cox, 1993; Triandis, Bass, Ewen, & Mikesell, 1963; Watson,Kumar, & Michaelsen, 1993; Wierserma & Bantel, 1992). Jackson (1992), how-ever, reported that the only clear conclusion is that groups with diversity ofpersonal attributes and ability outperform homogeneous groups on creative orjudgmental tasks. Substantial research is needed to better understand the processesused in creativity and judgment, and their roles, both beneficial and detrimental,in organizational contexts.

Potential trends and issues for future investigation.Broad sets of ques-tions are available about how minorities and women tend to respond to variousfeatures of organizational environments. For example, Ferris, Frink, Bhawuk,Zhou, and Gilmore (1996) investigated how understanding moderated the rela-tionships between politics perceptions and subjective outcomes for differentdemographic subgroups. They found that understanding moderated the relation-ship for white males, did not moderate the relationship for black males, andproduced mixed results for females. Indeed, we may expect to see differences inhow the political nature of HRM and other organizational activities support orsubvert desired outcomes from the various groups.

In another vein, Ferris, Frink, and Galang (1993) recently noted that, whilefirms may espouse diversity and even claim it as a competitive advantage, ourorganizational systems generally promote homogeneity and resist diversity. Asidefrom the natural tendency to like people who are like ourselves, quite often workand workplaces were designed and instituted by similarly minded people. Thereis a critical need to realistically understand the nature of the similarities anddifferences associated with diversity so that these issues may be applied todeveloping alternative HRM approaches.

Translating practice to theory. It seems readily apparent that diversityeffects are context contingent, and we need to capture the dynamics of workenvironments in our frameworks. These may include the type of work that is done,diversity at various levels in the organization, how various types of diversity playout in various contexts, and the relative mix of majority to minority representa-tives. At issue is the question of just what mixture of demographic grouprepresentatives constitutes diversity in a workgroup or organization. An empiricaldefinition of diversity in a workplace and the potential for nonlinear diversity-





performance relationships have been largely ignored, yet are critical for under-standing just what diversity effects really mean.

Accomplishing these tasks will require a better understanding of culture(both social and organizational) and of gender. Further, this understanding mustbe grounded solidly in conceptually consistent theory which has been establishedby empirical support and not by social preference per se. Ferris et al. (1998)recently provided an integrative conceptualization of culture, diversity, HRMsystems, and organization performance in an effort to shed further light onprecisely how and why HRM systems influence the performance of organizations.These and other needed efforts will allow us to draw more confident, scientificallybased conclusions about the meaning of diversity for organizational environ-ments.

Justice and HRM

Notions of fairness and justice are fundamental concepts in the organiza-tional sciences, and provide quite logical theoretical foundations for examinationof HRM issues. Theory and research on organizational justice has been around forquite some time, and have been applied to HRM systems over the past decade anda half by Greenberg, Folger, Cropanzano, and their associates. Indeed, researchhas been conducted on the implications of justice for personnel selection, perfor-mance evaluation, and compensation systems in recent years (e.g., Folger &Cropanzano, 1998; Folger, Konovsky, & Cropanzano, 1992; Gilliland, 1993;Korsgaard & Roberson, 1995; Taylor, Tracy, Renard, Harrison, & Carroll, 1995).Therefore, the integration of justice and HRM is not a new area of research by anymeans, but it is well along in its development. What is less well developed is theintegration of organizational justice and HRM systems that incorporates a polit-ical perspective, but some initial efforts have been made in this area.

Dulebohn (1997) proposed a conceptualization of how social influence andjustice reactions can be integrated in better understanding the operation of humanresources systems. More specifically, he suggested that employee use of influencetactics can represent a mechanism of informal voice and involvement which hasimplications for employee perceptions of justice in HRM decision processes (e.g.,performance evaluation systems, etc). In a recent test of portions of this concep-tualization, Dulebohn and Ferris (in press) found support for the role of influencetactics as informal mechanisms of voice in the performance evaluation process.

Symbolic and Reputational Considerations in HRM

Traditional views of HRM have implicitly, if not explicitly, focused on thesubstantive aspects of HRM policies and practices. Indeed, this is an importantfundamental assumption of the field. However, we need to acknowledge thatsymbolism, ceremonial activities, and legitimacy considerations are also criticalissues that can inform our understanding of the operation of HRM systems. In thissection, we first examine symbolic issues in HRM. Next, we examine how suchsymbolic issues help us to understand the power and influence of HRM depart-ments, and the implementation of progressive HRM practices. Finally, we discuss





how issues of reputation are important to understand, not simply with regard toorganizations overall, but also with respect to HRM functions or departments.

Pfeffer (1981) argued that there are two distinctive levels of organizationalanalysis. One focuses on the decisions and actions that have observable, substan-tive outcomes. The other involves understanding how such activities are perceivedand interpreted. He noted that symbols are particularly important in environmentscharacterized by a high degree of uncertainty or ambiguity. In such circumstances,symbols can help reduce uncertainty by helping participants interpret events in theenvironment. Formal HRM practices (e.g., selection/staffing), which articulatespecific procedures to follow, have a substantive purpose. Moreover, they alsohave a symbolic purpose by signaling to internal and external constituents thatimportant HRM decisions are being made in the proper way (Dipboye, 1994,1995).

Beliefs and values of an organization are key components of its culture, andHRM policies and practices can symbolically communicate the organizations’values to participants (Dandridge, Mitroff, & Joyce, 1980; Dipboye, 1994). Infact, the cultural and symbolic aspects of HRM practices can become so strongand entrenched in the organizational environment that they perpetuate even whenthey are not achieving their substantive goals (Trice, Belasco, & Alutto, 1969).Peters (1978) argued that senior managers in organizations are transmitters whoseactions signal meaning to participants as they are repeated. Consistent with thisview, Ulrich (1998) suggested that managers should invest resources in HRMpolicies and practices to demonstrate to various constituencies that they think it isan important area, worthy of time and attention.

Therefore, HRM systems serve symbolic and legitimating purposes that gobeyond their substantive value or contribution. Citing the basic elements ofinstitutional theory (Meyer & Rowan, 1977), Dipboye (1994) suggested thatpersonnel selection practices have ceremonial value in conveying to others thatsystematic and legitimate methods were used to hire people. Galang, Elsik, andRuss (1999) recently proposed a conceptualization of HRM policies and practiceswhich focuses not on their substantive value, but rather on how they servesymbolic and legitimacy purposes.

Consistent with this symbolic view of HRM systems, some researchers haveexamined how HRM departments gain and maintain power and influence. Ferris,Galang et al. (1995) discussed both the science and practice of power acquisitionby HRM departments in organizations. Russ, Galang, and Ferris (1998) provideda more precise articulation of how HRM departments actively engage in theprocess of not simply justifying their existence, but of demonstrating theircritically important role to the organization with their “phantom threat—discov-ered threat” model. Finally, Galang and Ferris (1997) integrated power, politics,and social construction theory in an empirical investigation of how HRM depart-ments acquire influence. They found that symbolic actions (e.g., image andimportance-enhancing behaviors and communications) were by far the strongestpredictors of HRM power and influence.

A final issue we wish to raise in this section has to do with the nature oforganization and HRM reputation. In many respects, the ultimate criterion of





importance to managers and organizations is reputation, despite its subjectivity,imprecise measurement, and the fact that it is probably more of a political than ascientific construct (Ferris, Fedor et al., 1994). Several recent critical analyses ofthe construct have been published that highlight the firm’s reputation as animportant asset that communicates important information to constituencies aboutits most attractive features. These features can be subsequently used to build acompetitive advantage (e.g., Belkaoui & Pavlik, 1992; Fombrun, 1996; Fombrun& Shanley, 1990; Shenkar & Yuchtman-Yaar, 1997). Because a good portion ofwhat goes into the corporate reputation construct has to do with good managementand HRM practices (Fortune has reported that the principal determinant ofcorporate reputation for its Corporate Reputation Survey is the quality of man-agement, Ballen, 1992; Koys, 1997), it seems reasonable to investigate howcompanies might rank on the progressiveness of their HRM policies and practices.Koys (1997) conducted a study in an effort to link HRM objectives of firms withtheir Fortunecorporate reputation rating. He found that firms who placed strongemphasis on treating their employees fairly tended to have the most favorablecorporate reputations.

An obvious prescription we could make is that an investment in progressiveand innovative HRM policies and practices makes good business sense, so allorganizations should make such investments. However, the difficulty is that thereare, indeed, competing pressures for such HRM investment (Harrell-Cook &Ferris, 1997), which highlight the pressures firms feel from the financial commu-nity and Wall Street analysts. Furthermore, there are political considerations thatimpact on the successful implementation of HRM innovations (Johns, 1993).Appelbaum and Batt (1994) suggested that for publicly held companies, wheremaximization of stock price and creating shareholder wealth are major objectives,investment of company resources in “difficult-to-measure activities” like HRMpractices is often discouraged. Further testimony to the misguided reward systemfor HRM investment is the prestigious Malcolm Baldrige National QualityAward. Appelbaum and Batt noted that of the 85% of the total Baldrige points thatare allocated for improvements in management methods, only 15% of those pointsare awarded for improvements in HRM practices.

Despite such competing pressures for HRM investment, it seems quite clearthat the spirit of the times we are currently experiencing favors valuation ofhuman resources, and implementation of innovative HRM practices. However, theburden remains on both HRM scholars and practitioners to demonstrate a stronglinkage between HRM systems and firm performance, as was noted in an earliersection of this article. As we more clearly and solidly support that linkage, wemight consider encouraging the implementation of progressive HRM practices inorganizations by creating something for the HRM field similar to theFortuneCorporate Reputation rating.Personnel Journalalready gives its Optimas Awardsfor innovative HRM practices, but these tend to be for very focused types ofprograms, and not for system-wide implementations. An “HRM EffectivenessIndex” might be created to recognize organizations that reflect innovation in theimplementation of their entire HRM systems. Highly rated firms on this indexwould likely capture features of Ulrich’s (1997)Human Resource Champions,





enjoy synergistic effects from compatible and mutually reinforcing HRM prac-tices (e.g., Huselid, 1995), and hopefully also rank among the highest performingcompanies. Such efforts would seem to rely on not only sound research andpractice, but on the effective integration of the two, which is the topic of the nextsection.

Bridging the Gap Between the Science and Practice of HRM

In spite of the significant progress that has been made with respect to both thescience and practice of HRM, the gap between these two areas remains. Buckley,Ferris, Bernardin, and Harvey (1998) have called this problem “a disconnect.” Itis a disconnect in that scientists and practitioners seem to have segregated alongthese lines. This is a relatively recent phenomenon because until the relativelyrecent past, the study of HRM was problem driven (e.g., the Hawthorne studiesare a shining example of significant scientist/practitioner collaboration). Our zestto develop a theory of HRM may have been instrumental in driving a wedgebetween scientists and practitioners. Buckley et al. (1998) reported that managersare relatively familiar with the research in HRM, but they fail to see manypractical implications coming from said research.

Much of our research can be classified as methodologically or data-driven,rather than topic driven, despite the suggestion by Hackman (1985) that doingproblem-driven research is the best way to generate advances in basic theory.Further, many of us are trained to generate knowledge in our discipline, not tosolve organizational problems. So, the development of this scientist/practitionergap has been a natural occurrence in our developing science.

Lawler (1985) attempted to bridge this gap by suggesting that we need toconduct “useful” research. He argued that if research is to be useful, it must meettwo fundamental criteria: (1) The outcome must facilitate practitioners’ under-standing of organizations and result in improved practices; and (2) the outcomemust contribute to the theory and body of knowledge generated in the science ofHRM. The field of HRM appears to be moving in the direction suggested byLawler. As Hitt (1995) stated after reviewing recent issues of “the scholarlyjournals” in our field:

Admittedly, I do not have expertise on all of the topic areas onwhich the articles focused. However, in each issue I was able to identifyone (often several) article that had clear and important implications formanagers. (p. 53)

We agree, and believe that although some research has little practical value, thereis a great deal of research that has far-reaching implications for public policy andhuman resources management practices.

Terpstra and his colleagues have conducted recent research which addressesthe gap between the science and practice of HRM, and the types of informationsources that practitioners use (Terpstra, Mohamed, & Rozell, 1996; Terpstra &Rozell, 1997). Results demonstrated that academic research sources were usedless frequently by managers than practitioner sources. Furthermore, and of even





greater interest, is the finding that organizational profitability increased the extentto which firms reported making greater use of academic research sources. Use ofpractitioner sources was not significantly related to profitability. Further work inthis area should begin to shed more light on information access, types ofinformation outlets, and the effective interface between academic research find-ings and practitioner use.

Ferris, Barnum, Rosen, Holleran, and Dulebohn (1995) have suggested away to minimize the chasm between science and practitioners. They believe weneed to more closely follow the evolution of the field of industrial/organizationalpsychology where the integration of science and practice has been activelypromoted for many years. In addition, Ferris et al. (1995) concluded that the bestway to accomplish this in the field of HRM is through the development ofbusiness-university partnerships. These partnerships actively involve partner ex-ecutives in identifying the issues and problems in their firms on which they wouldlike to see research conducted. Universities (and organizations) which havedeveloped these partnerships report that they are instrumental in developing greatopportunities to contribute to both the theory and practice of HRM. Moving in thisdirection may help us develop innovative approaches to the practice of HRM,while developing its theoretical base.

Conclusion

In an effort to increase its competitiveness globally, organizational Americahas undergone a major transformation in size, structure, and design. Largelyanachronistic in today’s turbulent and dynamic organizational environments, thetraditional bureaucratic structure, with its multi-layered, pyramidal design, isbeing replaced by flatter, horizontal structures. Unfortunately, our theories of howorganizations operate are implicitly (if not explicitly) based on the bureaucraticmodel. As a consequence, we are desperately in need of theories that embracethese new organizational forms (Daft & Lewin, 1993). More specifically, in orderto fully comprehend the evolution and transformation of the science and practiceof HRM, we need to understand the legal, economic, and political influences onthe size, structure, roles, operation, and organizational impact of HRM (e.g.,Keiser & Ferris, 1997).

For HRM scholars, there are multitudes of interesting questions to ask andresearch streams to develop and pursue, some of which we have suggested in thisreview. We have perhaps never witnessed more intellectually stimulating times inthis field than the present, and it encourages (no, demands!) creative, innovative,uninhibited, and nonlinear thinking if we are to make significant contributions tonew knowledge, and truly develop a more informed understanding of HRM.

For HRM practitioners, the profession offers exciting opportunities to makea difference. Yet continually challenging the practitioners are the escalatingdemands by organizations that HRM (and all functional areas, for that matter) beaccountable and demonstrate tangible and quantifiable bottom-line impact. It willbe a demanding yet rewarding occupation, but clearly not for the timid and faintof heart. Organizations of the past tolerated the HRM professional who waslargely seen as a compassionate confidant to employees, and one who carried the





watermelon to the company picnic, and visited the sick, lame, and lazy. To trulybe a strategic business partner, professionals must anticipate and articulate boththe key HRM opportunities and challenges, and step up as the internal expert toproactively enact (not simply react to) their environments, embrace and leadchange, and demonstrate how HRM is, indeed, the source of sustained competi-tive advantage.

It has become clear to us that in truly progressive organizations in the future,HRM will not be merely viewed as a set of policies and practices, nor will it bedefined as just a department or function. Instead, in such effective organizations(e.g., perhaps those identified as “Human Resource Champions,” by Ulrich,1997), HRM will be a“mentality” or way of thinking, so pervasive that it isinterwoven into the very fabric of organizations, and integral to all of its decisionsand actions. But indeed, this is a choice to be made by organizations, and one thatinvolves a considerable investment in its human resources, where we know thereare competing pressures (Harrell-Cook & Ferris, 1997). Will organizations makethe tough choice, and strive to be purveyors of excellence, or the easier one, andsettle for being merchants of mediocrity? We shall see.

References

Adelberg, S., & Batson, C. 1978. Accountability and helping: When needs exceed resources.Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 36: 343–350.

Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. 1992. Demography and design: Predictors of new product team performance.Organizational Science, 3: 321–341.

Appelbaum, E., & Batt, R. 1994.The new American workplace: Transforming work systems in the United States.Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.

Arthur, J. 1994. Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance and turnover.Academy ofManagement Journal, 37: 670–687.

Arvey, R. D., Bhagat, R. S., & Salas, E. 1991. Cross-cutural and cross-national issues in personnel and humanresources management. In G. R. Ferris & K. M. Rowland (Eds.),Research in personnel and humanresources management, vol. 9: 76–98. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Arvey, R. D., Renz, G. L., & Watson, T. W. 1998. Emotionality and job performance: Implications for personnelselection. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.),Research in personnel and human resources management, vol. 16:103–147. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Ballen, K. 1992. America’s most admired corporations.Fortune, 125: 40–72.Barney, J. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage.Journal of Management, 17: 99–120.Barney, J. 1995. Looking inside for competitive advantage.Academy of Management Executive, 9: 49–81.Becker, B., & Gerhart, B. 1996. The impact of human resources management on organizational performance:

Progress and prospects.Academy of Management Journal, 39: 779–801.Belkaoui, A. R., & Pavlik, E. L. 1992.Accounting for corporate reputation. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. 1993. Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual

performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.),Personnel selection in organizations: 71–98. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. 1986. Prosocial organizational behaviors.Academy of Management Review, 11:710–725.

Brief, A. P., Dukerich, J. M., & Doran, L. I. 1991. Resolving ethical dilemmas in management: Experimentalinvestigations of values, accountability, and choice.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21: 380–396.

Brown, C. W., & Ghiselli, E. E. 1952. Industrial psychology. In C. P. Stone & D. W. Taylor (Eds.),Annualreview of psychology, vol. 3: 205–232. Stanford, CA: Annual Reviews, Inc.

Buckley, M. R., Ferris, G. R., Bernardin, H. J., & Harvey, M. G. 1998. The disconnect between the science andpractice of management.Business Horizons, 41: 31–38.

Butler, J. E., Ferris, G. R., & Napier, N. K. 1991.Strategy and human resources management.Cincinnati:South-Western.

Carnevale, P. J. 1985. Accountability of group representatives and intergroup relations. In E. J. Lawler (Ed.),Advances in group processes:227–248. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.





Chadwick, C., & Cappelli, P. 1999. Alternatives to generic strategy typologies in strategic human resourcemanagement. In P. Wright, L. Dyer, J. Boudreau & G. Milkovich (Eds.),Research in personnel and humanresources management, Supplement 4, Strategic human resources management in the 21st century: 11–29.Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Cicourel, A. 1958. The front and back of organizational leadership: A case study.Pacific Sociological Review,1: 54–58.

Cleveland, J. N., & Murphy, K. R. 1992. Analyzing performance appraisal as goal-directed behavior. In G. R.Ferris (Ed.),Research in personnel and human resources management, vol. 10: 121–185. Greenwich, CT:JAI Press.

Cooper, W. H., Graham, W. J., & Dyke, L .S. 1993. Tournament players. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.),Research inpersonnel and human resources management, vol. 11: 83–132. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Crystal, G. S. 1991.In search of excess: The overcompensation of American executives. New York: Norton.Cummings, L. L., & Anton, R. J. 1990. The logical and appreciative dimensions of accountability. In S. Sivastva,

D. Cooperrider, & Associates (Eds.),Appreciative management and leadership: 257–286. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Daft, R. L., & Lewin, A. Y. 1993. Where are the theories for the “new” organizational forms? An editorial essay.Organization Science, 4: i–vi.

Dandridge, T., Mitroff, I., & Joyce, W. F. 1980. Organizational symbolism: A topic to expand organizationalanalysis.Academy of Management Review, 5: 77–82.

Delaney, J., Lewin, D., & Ichniowski, C. 1989.Human resource policies and practices in American firms.Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Delery, J. E., & Doty, D. H. 1996. Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource management: Tests ofuniversalistic, contingency, and configurational performance predictions.Academy of Management Jour-nal, 39: 802–835.

DeMeyer, A., Nakane, J., Miller, J., & Ferdows, K. 1989. Flexibility: The next competitive battle.StrategicManagement Journal, 10: 135–144.

Dipboye, R. L. 1994. Structured and unstructured selection interviews: Beyond the job-fit model. In G. R. Ferris(Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management, vol. 12: 79–123. Greenwich, CT: JAIPress.

Dipboye, R. L. 1995. How politics can destructure human resources management in the interest of empower-ment, support, and justice. In R. S. Cropanzano & K. M. Kacmar (Eds.),Organizational politics, justice,and support: Managing the social climate of the workplace: 55–80. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Dowling, P. J., Schuler, R. S., & Welch, D. 1994.International dimensions of human resource management(2nded.). Boston: PWS-Kent.

Dulebohn, J. H. 1997. Social influence in justice evaluations of human resources systems. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.),Research in personnel and human resources management, vol. 15: 241–291. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Dulebohn, J. H., & Ferris, G. R. in press. The role of influence tactics on fairness perceptions of performanceevaluations.Academy of Management Journal.

Dulebohn, J. H., Ferris, G. R., & Stodd, J. T. 1995. The history and evolution of human resource management.In G. R. Ferris, S. D. Rosen, & D. T. Barnum. (Eds.),Handbook of human resource management: 18–41.Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.

Dyer, L. 1985. Strategic human resource management and planning. In K. M. Rowland & G. R. Ferris (Eds.),Research in personnel and human resources management, vol. 3: 1–30. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Dyer, L. 1993.Human resources as a source of competitive advantage.Kingston, Ontario: Industrial RelationsCentre Press, Queen’s University.

Dyer, L., & Holder, G. 1988. A strategic perspective of human resource management. In Dyer, L. (Ed.),Humanresource management: Evolving roles and responsibilities: 1–46. Washington, DC: Bureau of NationalAffairs.

Dyer, L., & Reeves, T. 1995. Human resource strategies and firm performance: What do we know and wheredo we need to go?International Journal of Human Resource Management, 6: 656–670.

Fandt, P. M. 1991. The relationship of accountability and interdependent behavior to enhancing team conse-quences.Group and Organization Studies, 16: 300–312.

Farmer, E. 1958. Early days in industrial psychology: An autobiographical note.Occupational Psychology, 32:264–267.

Ferguson, L. W. 1961. The development of industrial psychology. In B. V. H. Gilmer (Ed.),Industrialpsychology: 18–37. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Ferris, G. R., & Frink, D. D. 1997. Influence tactics in the performance evaluation process. In L. H. Peters, C. R.Greer, & S. A. Youngblood (Eds.),The Blackwell encyclopedic dictionary of human resource manage-ment:165–167. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.

Ferris, G. R., & Judge, T. A. 1991. Personnel/human resources management: A political influence perspective.Journal of Management, 17: 447–488.





Ferris, G. R., Arthur, M. M., Berkson, H. M., Kaplan, D. M., Harrell-Cook, G., & Frink, D. D. 1998. Towarda social context theory of the human resource management — organization effectiveness relationship.Human Resource Management Review8: 235–264.

Ferris, G. R., Barnum, D. T., Rosen, S. D., Holleran, L. P., & Dulebohn, J. H. 1995. Toward business-universitypartnerships in human resource management: Integration of science and practice. In G. R. Ferris, S. D.Rosen, & D. T. Barnum (Eds.),Handbook of human resource management:1–13. Oxford, UK: BlackwellPublishers.

Ferris, G. R., Buckley, M. R., & Allen, G. M. 1992. Promotion systems in organizations.Human ResourcePlanning, 15: 47–68.

Ferris, G. R., Dulebohn, J. H., Frink, D. D., George-Falvy, J., Mitchell, T. R., & Matthews, L. M. 1997. Job andorganizational characteristics, accountability, and employee influence.Journal of Managerial Issues, 9:162–175.

Ferris, G. R., Fedor, D. B., & King, T. R. 1994. A political conceptualization of managerial behavior.HumanResource Management Review, 4: 1–34.

Ferris, G. R., Frink, D. D., & Galang, M. C. 1993. Diversity in the workplace: The human resources managementchallenges.Human Resource Planning, 16: 41–51.

Ferris, G. R., Frink, D. D., Bhawuk, D. P., Zhou, J., & Gilmore, D. C. 1996. Reactions of diverse groups topolitics in the workplace.Journal of Management, 22: 23–44.

Ferris, G. R., Galang, M. C., Thornton, M. L., & Wayne, S. 1995. A power and politics perspective on humanresource management. In G. R. Ferris, S. D. Rosen, & D. T. Barnum. (Eds.),Handbook of human resourcemanagement, vol. 13: 100–114. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.

Ferris, G. R., Judge, T. A., Rowland, K. M., & Fitzgibbons, D. E. 1994. Subordinate influence in the performanceevaluation process: Test of a model.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58:101–135.

Ferris, G. R., Mitchell, T. R., Canavan, P. J., Frink, D. D., & Hopper, H. 1995. Accountability in human resourcesystems. In G. R. Ferris, S. D. Rosen, & D.T. Barnum (Eds.),Handbook of human resource management:175–196. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.

Fisher, C. 1989. Current and recurrent challenges in HRM.Journal of Management, 15: 157–180.Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. 1998.Organizational justice and human resource management. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications.Folger, R., Konovsky, M. A., & Cropanzano, R. 1992. A due process metaphor for performance appraisal. In

B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.),Research in organizational behavior, vol. 14: 129–177. Greenwich,CT: JAI Press.

Fombrun, C. J. 1996.Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image. Boston: Harvard Business SchoolPress.

Fombrun, C. J., & Shanley, M. 1990. What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy.Academyof Management Journal, 33: 233–258.

Frink, D. D., & Ferris, G. R. 1998. Accountability, impression management, and goal setting in the performanceevaluation process.Human Relations, 51: 1259–1283.

Frink, D. D., & Klimoski, R. J. 1998. Toward a theory of accountability in organizations and human resourcesmanagement. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.),Research in personnel and human resources management, vol. 16:1–51. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Frink, D.D., & Ferris, G. R. in press. The moderating effects of accountability on the conscientiousness-performance relationship.Journal of Business and Psychology.

Frost, P. J. 1989. The role of organizational power and politics in human resources management. In A. Nedd,G. R. Ferris & K. M. Rowland (Eds.),International human resources management, Supplement 1,Research in personnel and human resources management, vol. 7: 1–21. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Galang, M. C., & Ferris, G. R. 1997. Human resource department power and influence through symbolic action.Human Relations, 50: 1403–1426.

Galang, M., Elsik, W., & Russ, G. 1999. Legitimacy in human resource management. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.),Research in personnel and human resources management, vol. 17: 41–79. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Gellerman, S. W. 1958. The company personality.Management Review, 48: 69–76.Gilliland, S. W. 1993. The perceived fairness of selection systems: An organizational justice perspective.

Academy of Management Review, 18: 694–734.Gilmer, B. V. 1960. Industrial psychology. In C. P. Stone & D. W. Taylor (Eds.),Annual review of psychology,

vol. 11: 323–350. Stanford, CA: Annual Reviews, Inc.Gilmore, D. C., & Ferris, G. R. 1989. The politics of the employment interview. In R.W. Eder & G. R. Ferris

(Eds.), The employment interview: Theory, reseach, and practice: 195–203. Newbury Park, CA: SagePublications.

Gilmore, D. C., Stevens, C. K., Harrell-Cook, G., & Ferris, G. R. 1999. Impression management tactics. In R. W.Eder & M. M. Harris (Eds.),The employment interview handbook. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.





Gordon, R. A., Rozelle, R. M., & Baxter, J. C. 1988. The effect of applicant age, job level, and accountabilityon the evaluation of job applicants.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41: 20–33.

Gordon, R. A., Rozelle, R. M., & Baxter, J. C. 1989. The effect of applicant age, job level, and accountabilityon perceptions of female job applicants.The Journal of Psychology, 123: 59–68.

Hackman, J. R. 1985. Doing research that makes a difference. In E. E. Lawler, A. M. Mohrman Jr., S. A.Mohrman, G. E. Ledford Jr., & T. G. Cummings (Eds.),Doing research that is useful for theory andpractice: 126–149. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Harper, S. C. 1992. The challenges facing CEOs: Past, present, and future.Academy of Management Executive,6: 7–25.

Harrell, T. W. 1953. Industrial psychology. In C. P. Stone & D. W. Taylor (Eds.),Annual review of psychology,vol. 4: 215–238. Stanford, CA: Annual Reviews, Inc.

Harrell-Cook, G. 1999.Human resource systems, flexibility, and firm performance in turbulent environments.Unpublished doctoral dissertation proposal, Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations, University ofIllinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Harrell-Cook, G., & Ferris, G. R. 1997. Competing pressures for human resource investment.Human ResourceManagement Review, 7: 317–340.

Harvey, M. G. 1989. Repatriation of corporate executives: An empirical study.Journal of International BusinessStudies, 20: 131–144.

Harvey, M. G. 1996. Dual career couples: The selection dilemma in international relocations.InternationalJournal of Selection and Assessment, 4: 4–22.

Harvey, M. G., & Buckley, M. R. 1997. Managing inpatriates: Building a global core competancy.Journal ofWorld Business, 32: 35–52.

Hitt, M. A. 1995. Academic research in management/organizations—is it dead or alive?Journal of ManagementInquiry, 4: 52–56.

Hoffman, L. R., & Maier, N. R. 1961. Quality and acceptance of problem solutions by members of homogeneousand heterogeneous groups.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62: 401–407.

Howard, J. L., & Ferris, G. R. 1996. The employment interview context: Social and situational influences oninterviewer decisions.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26: 112–136.

Huselid, M. 1995. The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporatefinancial performance.Academy of Management Journal, 38: 635–672.

Huselid, M., Jackson, S., & Schuler, R. 1997. Technical and strategic human resource effectiveness asdeterminants of firm performance.Academy of Management Journal, 40: 171–188.

Jackson, S. E. 1992. Consequences of group composition for the interpersonal dynamics of strategic issueprocessing. In P. Shrivastava, A. Huff, & J. Dutton (Eds.),Advances in strategic management, vol. 8:345–382. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. 1995. Understanding human resource management in the context of organiza-tions and their environments. In J. T. Spence, J. M. Darley & D. J. Foss (Eds.),Annual review ofpsychology, vol. 46: 237–264. Palo Alto, CA: Annual reviews, Inc.

Jennings, P. D. 1994. Viewing macro HRM from without: Political and institutional perspectives. In G. R. Ferris(Ed.),Research in personnel and human resources management, vol. 12: 1–40. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Johns, G. 1993. Constraints on the adoption of psychology-based personnel practices: Lessons from organiza-tional innovation.Personnel Psychology, 46: 569–592.

Jones, E. E. 1990.Interpersonal perception.New York: W. H. Freeman.Judge, T. A., & Bretz, R. D. 1994. Political influence behavior and career success.Journal of Management, 20:

43–66.Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. 1992. The elusive criterion of fit in human resources staffing decisions.Human

Resource Planning, 15: 47–67.Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. 1993. Social context of performance evaluation decisions.Academy of Management

Journal, 36: 80–105.Kacmar, K. M., Delery, J. E., & Ferris, G. R. 1992. Differential effectiveness of applicant impression

management tactics on employment interview decisions.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22:1250–1272.

Kanter, R. M. 1983.The changemasters. New York: Simon & Schuster.Katz, D., & Kahn, R. 1978.The social psychology of organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Keiser, J. D., & Ferris, G. R. 1997. Work force flexibility. In L. H. Peters, C. R. Greer & S. A. Youngblood

(Eds.),The Blackwell encyclopedic dictionary of human resource management: 391–394. Oxford, UK:Blackwell Publishers.

Kilduff, M., & Day, D. 1994. Do chameleons get ahead? The effects of self monitoring on managerial careers.Academy of Management Journal, 37: 1047–1060.

Kipnis, D., & Schmidt, S. 1982.Profile of organizational influence strategies. San Diego: University Associates.





Klimoski, R., & Inks, L. 1990. Accountability forces in performance appraisal.Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes, 45: 194–208.

Konrad, A., Winter, S., & Gutek, B. A. 1992. Diversity in work group sex composition: Implications for majorityand minority members. In P. Tolbert & S. Bacharach (Eds.),Research in the sociology of organizations:115–140. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Korsgaard, M., & Roberson, L. 1995. Procedural justice in performance evaluation.Journal of Management, 21:657–699.

Koys, D. J. 1997. Human resource management andFortune’s corporate reputation survey.Employee Respon-sibilities and Rights Journal, 10: 93–101.

Kristof, A. L. 1996. Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, andimplications.Personnel Psychology, 49: 1–49.

Lawler, E. E. 1985 Challenging traditional research assumptions. In E. E. Lawler A. M. Mohrman Jr., S. A.Mohrman, G. E. Ledford Jr. & T. G. Cummings (Eds.),Doing research that is useful for theory andpractice: 1–18. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lengnick-Hall, C. A., & Lengnick-Hall, M. L. 1988. Strategic human resource management: A review of theliterature and a proposed typology.Academy of Management Review, 13: 454–470.

Longenecker, C. O., Sims, H. P., & Gioia, D. A. 1987. Behind the mask: The politics of employee appraisal.Academy of Management Executive, 1: 183–193.

MacDuffie, J. 1995. Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance: Organizational logic and flexibleproduction systems in the world auto industry.Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48: 197–221.

MacDuffie, J., & Krafcik, J. 1992. Integrating technology and human resources for high-performance manu-facturing. In T. Kochan & M. Useem (Eds),Transforming organizations: 210–226. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Mahoney, T. A., & Deckop, J. R. 1986. Evolution of concept and practice in personnel administration/humanresource management (PA/HRM).Journal of Management, 12: 223–241.

McLeod, P. L., Lobel, S. A., & Cox, T. 1993.Cultural diversity and creativity in small groups: A test ofvalue-in-diversity hypothesis. Unpublished working paper, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Mendonca, M., & Kanungo R. 1994. Managing human resources: The issue of cultural fit.Journal ofManagement Inquiry, 3: 189–205.

Mero, N. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. 1995. Effects of rater accountability on the accuracy and the favorability ofperformance ratings.Journal of Applied Psychology, 80: 517–524.

Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony.AmericanJournal of Sociology, 83: 340–363.

Miles, R., & Snow, C. 1978.Organizational strategy, structure and process. New York: McGraw-Hill.Milkovich, G. T. 1988. A strategic perspective on compensation management. In G. R. Ferris & K. M. Rowland

(Eds.),Research in personnel and human resources management, vol. 6: 263–288. Greenwich, CT: JAIPress.

Milliman, J., Von Glinow, M. A., & Nathan, M. 1991. Organizational life cycles and strategic internationalhuman resource management in multinational companies: Implications for congruence theory.Academy ofManagement Review, 16: 318–339.

Mintzberg, H. 1983.Power in and around organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Mitchell, T. R. 1993. Leadership, values, and accountability. In M. M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.),Leadership

theory and research: perspectives and directions:109–136. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Monks, R., & Minow, N. 1991.Power and accountability. New York: Harper Business.Morrisette, H. S., Frink, D. D., Robinson, R. K., & Reithel, B. 1998.Workforce diversity and organizational

effectiveness: An industry level investigation of the effects of female and ethnoracial participation. Paperpresented at the 1998 Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, San Diego, CA.

Napier, N. K., Tibau, J., Janssens, M., & Pilenzo, R. C. 1995. Juggling on a high wire: The role of theinternational human resources manager. In G. R. Ferris, S. D. Rosen & D. T. Barnum. (Eds.),Handbookof human resource management: 217–242. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.

O’Connor, K. M. 1997. Groups and solos in context: The effects of accountability on team negotiation.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 72: 384–407.

Organ, D. W. 1988.Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.Lexington, MA: Lexing-ton Books.

Osterman, P. 1994. How common is workplace transformation and who adopts it?Industrial and LaborRelations Review, 47: 173–188.

Peters, T. J. 1978. Symbols, patterns, and settings: An optimistic case for getting things done.OrganizationalDynamics, 1: 3–23.

Pfeffer, J. 1981. Management as symbolic action: The creation and maintenance of organizational paradigms. InL. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.),Research in organizational behavior, vol. 3: 1–52. Greenwich, CT:JAI Press.





Pfeffer, J. 1989. A political perspective on career: Interests, networks, and environments. In M. G. Arthur, D. T.Hall & B. S. Lawrence (Eds.),Handbook of career theory: 380–396. New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Pfeffer, J. 1994.Competitive advantage through people: Unleashing the power of the workforce. Boston:Harvard Business School Press.

Plevel, M., Lane, F., Schuler, R., & Nellis, S. 1995. Business strategy and human resource management: Aprofile of AT&T global business communication systems. In G. R. Ferris, S. D. Rosen & D. T. Barnum,D. (Eds.),Handbook of human resource management: 42–65. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.

Porter, M. E. 1980.Competitive strategy. New York: Free Press.Punnett, B. J., & Ricks, D. A. 1992.International business. Boston: PWS-Kent.Ricks, D., Toyne, B., & Martinez, Z. 1990. Recent developments in international management research.Journal

of Management, 16: 219–253.Rozelle, R. M., & Baxter, J. C. 1981. Influence of role pressures on the perceiver: Judgments of videotaped

interviews varying judge accountability and responsibility.Journal of Applied Psychology, 66: 437–441.Russ, G. S., Galang, M. C., & Ferris, G. R. 1998. Power and influence of the human resources function through

boundary spanning and information management.Human Resource Management Review, 8: 125–148.Schlenker, B. R. 1997. Personal responsibility: Applications of the triangle model. In B. M. Staw (Ed.),Research

in organizational behavior, vol. 19: 241–301. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Schlenker, B., Britt, T., Pennington, J., Murphy, R., & Doherty, K. 1994. The triangle model of responsibility.

Psychological Review, 101: 632–652.Schuler, R. S. 1989. Strategic human resource management and industrial relations.Human Relations, 42:

157–184.Schuler, R. S., & Florkowski, G. W. 1996. International human resources management. In B. Punnett & O.

Shenkar (Eds.),Handbook for international management research: 351–390. Cambridge, MA: BlackwellPublishers.

Schuler, R. S., Dowling, P., & DeCieri, H. 1993. An integrative framework of strategic international humanresource management.International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1: 717–764.

Schuler, R., & Jackson, S. 1987. Linking competitive strategies and human resource management practices.Academy of Management Executive, 1: 202–219.

Shartle, C. L. 1950. Industrial psychology. In C. P. Stone & D. W. Taylor (Eds.),Annual review of psychology,vol. 1: 151–172. Stanford, CA: Annual Reviews, Inc.

Shenkar, O., & Yuchtman-Yaar, E. 1997. Reputation, image, prestige, and goodwill: An interdisciplinaryapproach to organizational standing.Human Relations, 50: 1361–1381.

Snell, S. A. Youndt, M. A., & Wright, P. M. 1996. Establishing a framework for research in strategic humanresource management: Merging resource theory and organizational learning. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.),Research in personnel and human resources management14: 61–90. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Staw, B. M., Sutton, R. I., & Pelled, L. H. 1994. Employee positive emotion and favorable outcomes at theworkplace.Organization Science, 5: 51–71.

Stevens, C. K., & Kristof, A. L. 1995. Making the right impression: A field study of applicant impressionmanagement during job interviews.Journal of Applied Psychology, 80: 587–606.

Stewart, T. A. 1996a. Human resources bites back.Fortune, May 13: 175.Stewart, T. A. 1996b. Taking on the last bureaucacy.Fortune, January 15: 105.Taylor, M. S., Tracy, K. B., Renard, M. K., Harrison, J. K., & Carroll, S. J. 1995. Due process in performance

appraisal: A quasi-experiment in procedural justice.Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 495–523.Taylor, S., & Beechler, S. 1993. Human resources management system integration and adaptation in multina-

tional firms.Advances in International Comparative Management, 8: 115–174.Taylor, S., Beechler, S., & Napier, N. 1996. Toward an integrative model of strategic international human

resource management.Academy of Management Review, 21: 959–985.Terpstra, D. E., Mohamed, A. A., & Rozell, E. J. 1996. A model of human resource information, practice choice,

and organizational outcomes.Human Resource Management Review, 6: 25–46.Terpstra, D. E., & Rozell, E. J. 1997. Sources of human resource information and the link to organizational

profitability. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 33: 66–83.Tetlock, P. E. 1985. Accountability: The neglected social context of judgment and choice. In L. L. Cummings

& B. M. Staw (Eds.),Research in organizational behavior, vol. 7: 297–332. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Tetlock, P. E. 1992. The impact of accountability on judgment and choice: Toward a social contingency model.

In M. P. Zanna (Ed.),Advances in experimental social psychology: 331–377. New York: Academic Press.Tetlock, P. E., & Boettger, R. 1989. Accountability: Social magnifier of the dilution effect.Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 57: 388–398.Tetlock, P. E., & Boettger, R. 1994. Accountability amplifies the status quo effect when change creates victims.

Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7: 1–23.





Tetlock, P. E., & Kim, J. I. 1987. Accountability and judgment processes in a personality prediction task.Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 52: 700–709.

Tetlock, P. E., Skitka, L., & Boettger, R. 1989. Social and cognitive strategies for coping with accountability:Conformity, complexity, and bolstering.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57: 632–640.

Thacker, R. A., & Wayne S. J. 1995. An examination of the relationship between upward influence tactics andassessments of promotability.Journal of Management, 21: 739–756.

Triandis, H. C., Bass, A. R., Ewen, R. B., & Mikesell, E. H. 1963. Team creativity as a function of the creativityof the members.Journal of Applied Psychology, 17: 104–110.

Trice, H. M., Belasco, J., & Alutto, J. A. 1969. The role of ceremonials in organizational behavior.Industrialand Labor Relations Review, 23: 40–51.

Tung, R. L. 1987. Expatriate assignments: Enhancing success and minimizing failure.Academy of ManagementExecutive, 1: 117–125.

Ulrich, D. 1997.Human resource champions: The next agenda for adding value and delivering results.Boston:Harvard Business School Press.

Ulrich, D. 1998. A new mandate for human resources.Harvard Business Review, Jan.–Feb.: 124–134.Vecchio, R. P. 1995. It’s not easy being green: Jealousy and envy in the workplace. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.),

Research in personnel and human resources management, vol. 13: 201–244. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Villanova, P., & Bernardin, H. 1989. Impression management in the context of performance appraisal. In R. A.

Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.),Impression management in the organization: 299–314. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Villanova, P., & Bernardin, H. 1991. Performance appraisal: The means, motive, and opportunity to manageimpressions. In R. A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.),Applied impression management: How image-making affects managerial decisions: 81–96. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Watson, W., Kumar, K., & Michaelsen, L. 1993. Cultural diversity’s impact on interaction process andperformance: Comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups.Academy of Management Journal, 36:590–602.

Wayne, S. J., & Liden, R. C. 1995. Effects of impression management on performance ratings: A longitudinalstudy.Academy of Management Journal, 38: 232–260.

Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., Graf, I. K., & Ferris, G. R. 1997. The role of upward influence tactics in humanresource decisions.Personnel Psychology, 50: 979–1006.

Wieserma, M. F., & Bantel, K. A. 1992. Top management team demography and corporate strategic change.Academy of Management Journal, 35: 91–121.

Wright, P. M., & McMahan, G. C. 1992. Theoretical perspectives for strategic human resource management.Journal of Management, 18: 292–320.

Wright, P. M., & Sherman, W. S. 1999. Failing to find fit in strategic human resource management: Theoreticaland empirical problems. In P. Wright, L. Dyer, J. Boudreau & G. Milkovich (Eds.),Research in personneland human resources management. Supplement 4. Strategic human resources management in the 21stcentury: 53–74. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Wright, P. M., & Snell, S. A. 1998. Toward a unifying theory for exploring fit and flexibility in startegic humanresource management.Academy of Management Review, 23: 756–772.

Yarnold, P. R. Mueser, K. T., & Lyons, J. S. 1988. Type A behavior, accountability, and work rate in smallgroups.Journal of Research in Personality, 22: 353–360.

Youndt, M. A., Snell, S. A., Dean, J. W., & Lepak, D. P. 1996. Human resource management, manufacturingstrategy, and firm performance.Academy of Management Journal, 39: 836–866.

Ziller, R. 1973. Homogeneity and heterogeneity of group membership. In C. H. McClintock (Ed.),Experimentalsocial psychology: 385–411. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.





human resource mangemnet

Education