Causas de indignidad (art. 756.7 CC) y desheredación. Indignidad para suceder al

In reading these and other studies examining the link between HRM and performance, it is important to bear in mind that the SHRM–performance literature is one that is beset with problems and controversies. Commentators have noted diffi culties in at least six interrelated areas:

● Defi ning SHRM. What aspects or features should be included and why? In Chapter 5 we outlined some of the many ways in which SHRM has been conceptualized and argued that no clear agreement has been reached as to what constitutes ‘best practice’. Studies have used widely different measures of high-performance work practices and reported signifi cant variations in results (Marchington and Grugulis, 2000; Wright et al, 2001;

Guest et al, 2004; Chang and Huang, 2005; Hesketh and Fleetwood, 2006). Although on paper the ‘high commitment’ approach is favoured, there is some research evidence that

‘low road’ or high control, cost minimization strategies may be more closely associated with performance (Wood and de Menezes, 1998; Orlitzky and Frenkel, 2005). We know little about which HR practices, specifi cally, might be more important than others, or under which circumstances (Patterson et al, 2007).

● Rhetoric/reality gap. Is it suffi cient to measure intended HR strategies and policies when exploring the HRM–performance linkage? Research suggests that there is a signifi cant gap between rhetoric and reality, with employees’ HR experiences normally

SHRM AND PERFORMANCE 147 falling some way short of what is intended. Studies that rely on stated HR strategies may

therefore be failing to measure what is actually happening in organizations (Truss, 2001;

Gerhart, 2005; Kinnie et al, 2005a; Patterson et al, 2007; Nishii et al, 2008; Conway and Monks, 2009). The most recent trend is towards focusing on employees’ experiences or perceptions of HR.

● Specifying outcomes. At what level should the outcomes of SHRM be measured? Should the focus be on fi rm fi nancial performance, individual performance, or divisional/unit performance, for example? Are these outcomes relevant in all contexts? For example, a focus on fi rm fi nancial performance will not be relevant for public or third sector organizations. Firm performance may be too far removed from the HRM/employee relationship and dependent on other factors (Purcell and Kinnie, 2007). Should the focus be on the individual level and, if so, should we be concerned with behavioural or attitudinal outcomes (Wright et al, 2001; 2003; Boxall and Purcell, 2008)? It is also the case that a focus on short-term fi nancial outcomes may be at the expense of longer-term outcomes such as generating organizational sustainability and resilience over time.

Practical issues have meant that important topics such as these have not yet been subject to empirical research.

● Theoretical linkage. Commentators have referred to the ‘black box’ between SHRM, on the one hand, and outcomes, on the other. Many feel that there is a lack of an appropriate theoretical framework for explaining why SHRM should be linked to performance at any level. Is the gap too great between high-level SHRM policy making, on the one hand, and the fi nancial performance of the fi rm, on the other, for any meaningful conclusions to be drawn? And, signifi cantly, on what theoretical grounds can we assert that there is a causal linkage? It is insuffi cient merely to observe that fi rms with particular approaches to SHRM perform better than others; without an explanatory framework, such an observation may be either a coincidence or masking other,

underlying factors, and in fact causality may even be reversed, i.e. fi rms that perform better can afford to invest more in their SHRM processes (Guest, 2001; Hesketh and Fleetwood, 2006; Boxall and Purcell, 2008). A surprising number of studies have failed to provide any theoretical underpinning for their empirical research. Table 8.2 summarizes some of the main theories used to ‘explain’ the HRM–performance linkage and their limitations. In summary, no single theoretical framework has so far been able to provide an adequate explanation of the process by which HRM impacts on performance, but those that focus on the link between HRM interventions as experienced by employees and performance outcomes at the individual level are the most persuasive.

● Methodology. The majority of studies in the area have, for pragmatic reasons, used cross-sectional research designs that also rely on the views of one respondent in each organization. This creates a series of problems. For example, can one person’s views on a fi rm’s HR strategy and its fi nancial performance be relied upon? How can collecting data at one point in time on both input factors, such as HR strategy, and output factors, such as performance, be valid? We would normally expect some kind of lag between an intervention and an outcome (Gerhart et al, 2000; Guest, 2001; Boselie et al, 2003;

Wall and Wood, 2005). More worryingly, in a review of the literature, Wright et al (2005) found that a signifi cant number of studies relied on performance data from an

STRATEGIC HRM Table 8.2 Summary of key theories on the HRM–performance link

Theory Summary Evaluation Examples

Resource-based view

HRM can increase the quality of HR which constitutes a source of sustained competitive advantage.

The RBV is the most widely used theoretical framework in the fi eld, but it is diffi cult to test empirically. Not all fi rms seek advantage, some are focused on survival. The RBV may not apply to public/third sector organizations and it does not constitute an adequate explanation of the processes by which HRM can raise performance levels. The RBV is relevant only at the level of the fi rm, rather than at the level of the individual employee.

See Chapter 6 for extended discussion

Social exchange theory

Where employees are treated well by their employer, this creates an expectation that this will be reciprocated through high levels of performance and loyalty.

There have been relatively few studies so far using this perspective, so evidence is limited. Social exchange theory can be used to examine outcomes at the individual level. However, more research is needed to explore which aspects of HRM may be most relevant.

Gould-Williams

People will perform well when they have the necessary skills and abilities, motivation, and opportunity to do so. HRM policies and practices can help bring about these circumstances.

Relatively few studies have used this approach so far. The AMO model is intuitively appealing and derived from sound theoretical roots. It can help to explain performance outcomes at the individual level, but more research is needed to examine the three core components in more detail.

Purcell et al (2003)

Job performance theory

Individuals’ actions impact on the achievement of organizational goals in three ways: in-role behaviour, i.e. behaviour that is expected; extra-role behaviour, i.e. behaviour that is beyond the immediate requirements of the job; and dysfunctional behaviour aimed at harming the organization. HRM can impact on workers’ attitudes which, in turn, will impact on these three aspects of behaviour and affect unit level performance.

This perspective is founded in organizational psychology and provides a promising avenue for future research by examining individual performance from a number of angles. It also suggests the mechanisms that may be relevant for linking individual and unit performance. More research is needed to explore the application of this approach.

Wright et al (2003)

SHRM AND PERFORMANCE149

HRM impacts on the knowledge, skills, and abilities of employees, the processes by which employees develop and combine knowledge, and the organizational climate, which combine to enhance performance outcomes.

Evidence is weak, e.g. Youndt and Snell (2004) found that HRM only explained 28% of variance in fi rm social capital. Also the theory does not explain precisely how these mechanisms work.

Organizations in the same setting will be subject to various pressures to develop similar HR solutions and thus become increasingly homogeneous over time.

These effects will mediate the relationship between HRM and performance.

New institutionalism underlines the importance of context and setting, which have been downplayed in the RBV. However, it cannot alone provide a theoretical basis for understanding how and why HRM might impact on organizational performance, which is why it has been combined by Boselie et al (2003) with the RBV. Like the RBV, this framework is relevant at the level of the fi rm, rather than the individual employee.

Boselie et al (2003)

Attribution theory

Employees make attributions about management’s motivations in the HR practices they see implemented. There are fi ve possible attributions:

compliance with the union; employee wellbeing;

exploiting employees; focus on service quality; focus on cost reduction. Those approaches associated with positive consequences for employees are likely to lead to higher levels of performance.

Only one study has used this approach, and support was found for only three of the possible attributions. However, the research found that there was a link between attributions and employee attitudes, and that employees respond to the same HR practices in different ways. The study has important implications for future research in the fi eld.

Nishii et al (2008)

earlier period than was covered by the HR practices that were measured. Guest (2011) argues that the absence of longitudinal methodologies in the fi eld casts doubt on many of the fi ndings. He states that past performance is a far stronger predictor of current performance than is HRM.

● Perspective. Critical scholars have noted that studies on the SHRM–performance linkage are unitary in perspective and overemphasize fi nancial performance at the expense of employee, ethical, or societal level outcomes (Paauwe, 2004). Some have argued that SHRM has been associated with efforts towards work intensifi cation, decreasing job security, and other outcomes that are undesirable at the individual level (Marchington and Grugulis, 2000; Wright et al, 2003; Guerrero and Barraud-Didier, 2004; Harley and Hardy, 2004; Chang and Huang, 2005; Legge, 2005; Long, 2007; Boxall and Purcell, 2008). There is lack of agreement over whether data relating to HR practices should be collected from individual employees or from HR managers, and whose perspective is of most value and relevance (Guest, 2001; Hesketh and Fleetwood, 2006). Delbridge and Keenoy (2011: 800) refer to the ‘moribund and limited nature of mainstream HRM’ and the absence of theoretical critique or reference to alternative voices within studies of the HRM–performance linkage.

Key Concept

The black box refers to the unknown processes that occur between HR interventions, on the one hand, and performance outcomes, on the other. One focus of research has been to fi nd an appropriate theory to explain how this ‘black box’ works in order to better explain why and how HRM might impact on performance.

Case study 8.2 Nick’s Pizza and Pub

It is often the case that staff turnover is high in the catering industry (around 200%) due to uncomfortable working conditions, stress, and the fact that many employees are young people working part-time. This means that achieving high levels of motivation and performance can be hard. Nick’s Pizza and Pub, based in Crystal Lake, Illinois, in the USA, has managed to buck this trend, achieving a manageable turnover rate of 20% and expanding its number of outlets. The company attributes its success to three key management practices. First, it has moved away from a ‘command and control’ style towards what it calls ‘trust and track’, where employees are told the reasons behind all the decisions that are made. Staff are encouraged to offer their own solutions for improving operations. Second, the company offers several levels of training that are voluntary, but those who choose to do more training receive an automatic pay rise, and those attaining the highest level train new employees. As employees move up the training levels, they wear different coloured hats so they are instantly recognizable. This system ensures that those who put in the most effort receive most rewards. Finally, Nick’s has designated a ‘safe area’ in each outlet where employees can talk to managers and give them feedback. Employees are able to call managers at all levels into this safe area at any time and know that they will be listened to. Nick’s feels that its approach to managing people places an emphasis on creating a great place to work and enhances customer service.

SHRM AND PERFORMANCE 151