Research Methods for Human Resource Management

Karin Sanders, Julie Cogin, Hugh Bainbridge, Karin Sanders, Julie Cogin, Hugh Bainbridge, Karin Sanders, Julie A. Cogin, Hugh T.J. Bainbridge

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2013
• eBook ISBN: 9781317918288
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Business General
• Index: Business

Since the beginning of the century, there have been calls for the integration of traditional individualistic (micro) and management (macro) paradigms in Human Resource Management studies. In order to understand this so-called 'black box, ' the HR field needs research which is more sensitive to institutional and cultural contexts, focusing on formal and informal relationships between employees, supervisors and HR managers and the means by which these organizational participants enable and motivate one another. This book presents advanced quantitative and mixed research methods that can be used to analyze integrated macro and micro paradigms within the field of Human Resource Management. Multi actor, social network and longitudinal research practices, among others, are explored. Readers will gain insight into the advantages and disadvantages of different research methods in order to evaluate which type is most suitable to their research. This book is suitable for both advanced researchers and graduate students.

1
The Growing Role of Advanced Human Resource Management Research Methods

Karin Sanders, Julie A. Cogin, and Hugh T. J. Bainbridge

After reading this chapter, we expect you to be able to:

1. Learn more about the methodological criticisms of HRM research;
2. Understand the social embeddedness framework to combine individual and organizational factors in understanding HRM research;
3. Introduce the chapters and understand the structure of this volume.

1. Introduction

Scientific progress is based on the continued evolution and interplay of theory and method. Theoretical developments suggest promising lines of inquiry and new research questions for empirical examination. Methodological advances provide improved tools with which to undertake research. Over the past two decades, major theoretical advances in Human Resource Management (HRM) research have contributed to a growing understanding of the relationship between HRM and performance. For example, Bowen and Ostroff (2004) proposed advanced theoretical models that outline how an understanding of multi-level phenomena can help to open the so-called black box. They argued that HR practices at the organizational level influence employee attitudes and behaviors on the individual level, and employee attitudes and behaviors influence performance on the organizational level.

Concurrent with these theoretical advances there has been an extensive discussion about HRM research methodology. For example, Gerhart (2008) and Huselid and Becker (2000) called for more longitudinal and experimental research as cross-sectional designs often lead to the measurement of HR practices and performance at the same time—limiting the ability to infer causality. These methodological discussions are important and have helped to shape perceptions in the HRM field about the desirability of particular methodological approaches (e.g., longitudinal versus cross-sectional designs). However, recent reviews of the HRM literature suggest that advanced research methods such as longitudinal designs, mixed methods, and multi-level modeling that are well established in fields such organizational behavior have not diffused widely into HRM research (Hoobler & Brown, 2004; Hayton, Piperopoulus, & Welbourne, 2011; Sanders, Bainbridge, Kim, Cogin, & Lin, 2012; Bainbridge, Sanders, Cogin, & Lin, under review; see Chapter 8).

This is unfortunate because advanced research methods can assist HRM researchers in their efforts to tackle the central challenges in the field. Well-specified research models that are based on sound theory, valid and reliable measures, and advanced analytical procedures enhance researchers’ likelihood of demonstrating significant effect sizes in their examination of the HRM-performance relationship. In addition, there is evidence that studies that utilize more advanced research methods have a greater impact (see Chapter 8). In turn, they are more likely to enhance the possibility of generating valid answers to questions about the effectiveness of HRM, to influence future research in the field, and to create positive perceptions of the rigor of the discipline (Hayton et al., 2011).

The fundamental premise of this volume is that sophisticated research methods provide researchers with the opportunity to enhance the quality of their investigations. We believe that as the HRM field matures, researchers need to adopt increasingly sophisticated research designs to examine progressively more complex and nuanced research questions. Thus, in this volume, our focus is on outlining key components of a selection of advanced research methods, the utility of such methods, and the potential modes of application on a variety of HRM research questions. Our goal is to provide a resource for emerging scholars including (research) masters and PhD students during the planning and conduct of their research.

In this introductory chapter we begin by reviewing the methodological criticisms of HRM research. We then introduce social embeddedness as a framework that can be drawn on in designing research that will address these methodological criticisms. We relate the different dimensions of social embeddedness to different research methods but leave subsequent chapters to provide more detail of each of the methods. In the last section of this chapter an overview of forthcoming chapters and their authors is presented.

2. Methodological Criticisms of HRM Research

There is an emerging consensus in the literature that HR practices reduce employee turnover, improve job attitudes, and enhance employee and organizational productivity (Huselid, Jackson, & Schulder, 1997; Wright, Gardner, Moynihan, & Allen, 2005; Boselie, Dietz, & Boon, 2005; Combs, Liu, Hall, & Ketchen, 2006). As a result, researchers from multiple backgrounds are studying the effects of HRM on employee and organizational performance (e.g., Paauwe, 2009). Despite this developing acceptance that HR practices are linked to performance, the HRM literature has been subject to two major criticisms concerning, (i) the strength of the relationship between HRM and performance measures, and (ii) the exact nature of the causal relationship between HRM and performance.

The Strength of the Relationship Between HRM and Performance Measures

The effect size of the relationship between HRM and performance has been a matter of some concern for many years, with researchers generally reporting only a moderately significant relationship between HRM and organizational performance. For instance, in 1995 Huselid published an article in which a correlation was reported between the degree of sophistication of HR systems and market value per employee. Five years after this publication Huselid and Becker (2000) published an article in which they indicate that the effect of one standard deviation change in the HRM system will increase an organizational market value by 10–20%. A meta-analysis by Combs et al. (2006) showed a correlation between high performance work systems (HPWS) and organizational performance of 0.20. Wall and Wood (2005) undertook a critical analysis of 25 of the best cited studies in reputable refereed journals and concluded that it was premature to suggest a linkage between HRM systems and organizational performance due to methodological limitations and inadequate research design.

A second concern is that the linkage between HR practices and organizational performance may not be a simple linear relationship, but rather one that consists of numerous moderating and mediating variables. In this respect, some progress has been made in uncovering the variables impacting the HRM-organizational performance relationship (Combs et al., 2006). Analyzing the content of 104 empirical articles, Boselie and colleagues (2005; see also Paauwe, 2009) conclude that there are three theories that are most commonly used to explain this relationship: contingency theory; resource-based-view (RBV); and the ability, motivation, opportunities (AMO) framework. These three theories reflect different paradigms in HRM research. Contingency theory and RBV focus on the examination of HRM from a management studies perspective and are researched at the organizational level (macro HRM). Researchers within this paradigm are mainly interested in the organizational performance effects. The AMO framework, with its roots in industrial and organizational psychology, is more likely to be invoked in the study of phenomena at the individual level of analysis. Such research tends to focus on the relationship between employees’ perceptions of single HR practices and outcomes such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment (micro HRM).

Both research traditions provide valuable perspectives for unraveling the HRM-performance relationship. For example, in addition to Bowen and Ostroff (2004; see also Ostroff & Bowen, 2000), scholars have called for research to integrate macro variables into micro research designs and micro variables into macro research designs (Lepak, Liao, Chung, & Harden, 2006; Wright & Boswell, 2002; Cogin & Williamson, in press). Such assertions call for scholars to adopt multi-level research designs that capture both within (e.g., employee differences) and between organizational variance (e.g., organizational performance).

HRM researchers are also becoming more sensitive to institutional and cultural context; formal and informal relationships between employees, supervisors, and HR managers; and the means by which these organizational participants enable and motivate one another. For instance, multi-actor, social network, and longitudinal research makes it possible to take into account the fact that employees are embedded in relations (social network research), teams and organizations (multi-actor research), and time (longitudinal). Such approaches will provide added value in opening the black box and in combining insights from the micro and macro paradigms.

The Exact Nature of the Causal Relationship Between HRM and Performance

Most HRM research suggests a positive causal relationship between HRM and performance, however many researchers (e.g., Becker & Huselid, 2006; Huselid & Becker, 2000; Wright et al., 2005) argue that this body of work lacks sufficient methodological rigor to demonstrate that the relationship is indeed causal (Wright et al., 2005, p. 410).

Current HRM research is predominantly characterized by cross-sectional designs (Boselie et al., 2005). Unfortunately, this body of cross-sectional work generally fails to meet the three criteria Cook and Campbell (1979) view as necessary for inferring causality: (i) covariation, meaning that cause and effect should covary with each other—if the cause is absent the effect should be absent, and if the cause if present, the effect should be present; (ii) temporal precedence of the cause, meaning that the cause should exist in time before the effect; and (iii) no alternative explanations should be present, meaning that all possible third variables should be ruled out.

Reviews of the HRM literature suggest that only the first condition (a test of covariation between HR practices and organizational performance) is typically met (Wright et al., 2005; Gerhart, 1999; Huselid & Becker, 1996). However, covariation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for establishing causality, and research that provides statistical evidence that a HRM system contributes to organizational performance cannot rule out the possibility of reverse causality. Guest, Michie, Sheehan, and Conway (2003) found that in some cases, correlations with past performance exceeded those with future performance, and that a drastic reduction of the relationship between HR practices and organizational performance, even to nonsignificance, occurred after controlling for past performance. Despite this, the possibility of reverse causality is rarely examined. Covariation may also occur where a third variable (the alternative explanation; so-called spurious relationships) cause both HR practices and organizational performance. For instance, good economic circumstances can promote HR practices and improved organizational performance. In order to review how the HRM literature has addressed issues of causality, Wright et al. (2005) reviewed empirical articles examining the relationship between HR practices and organizational performance. The most prevalent design was called post-predictive design, in which HR practices were measured after the performance period, resulting in designs where HRM actually predicted past performance (Wright et al., 2005, p. 412).

In the next section we introduce the social embeddedness framework to provide direction on how future HRM research can be improved by addressing these criticisms.

3. Social Embeddedness and Advanced Research Methods

Guest (1997), Boselie et al. (2005), and Paauwe (2009) emphasize the importance of well-developed theory to continued progress in the examination of HRM issues. In this section we utilize the concept of social embeddedness as a framework for exploring individual- and organizational-level research considerations. In so doing, it can help researchers to think about designs that bridge the micro- and macro-oriented worlds. A social embeddedness perspective points to the relevance of several advanced research methods to the study of HRM. In this section we thus review how a consideration of the social embedded nature of individuals within organizations can advance our understanding of HRM.

Following Granovetter (1985), Raub and Weesie (1990, 2000), and Sanders (2009) we argue that the social context, or social embeddedness, is a significant influence on employees’ behavior. The extent to which a relationship is embedded can be described in terms of three dimensions of embeddedness: temporal, network, and institutional (Raub & Weesie, 1990, 2000). Temporal embeddedness refers to the duration and expected future length of employment relationships. Network embeddedness refers to the network of social relationships between employees—for example, friendship or status hierarchies. Institutional embeddedness refers to the formal and informal rules of an organization, such as career progression and performance appraisal systems. These three dimensions of social embeddedness provide a clear road map for advanced HR research methods, which we argue is needed to advance the HRM field. In the following discussion we outline how these three dimensions of the social embeddedness framework relate to the research methods needed within the HR field.

Social embeddedness: How does it work in practice?

Evan is a PhD candidate interested in studying talent management programs. Evan’s overarching research question is, What makes talent management programs for high-potential employees effective? He has partnered with a large organization that has a talent management program in place to collect data for his PhD. After examining the literature, Evan decides to conduct preliminary interviews with participants at different stages of the program before settling on a research design for his PhD. From these interviews, Evan has three insights that influence his research design. First, Evan learns that ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• 1 The Growing Role of Advanced Human Resource Management Research Methods
• 2 Mixed Methods in HRM Research
• 3 Multi-Level and Multi-Actor Research
• 4 Social Network Research
• 5 Longitudinal Research
• 6 Experimental Method in HRM Research
• 7 Cross-Cultural Research
• 8 HR Research Methods: Where We Are and Where We Need to Go
• Contributors
• Index