COMPETENCIAS DE LA TITULACIÓN

A literature review of SHRM scholarship by Pérez (2012) noted that the assessments of extant SHRM literature cover a spectrum of “significant progress hav[ing] been made, to dismal extant results [which are seen] as inconclusive and lacking any casual implications” (p. 30). He asserts that such evaluations are by and large a result of the commentators aligning themselves to their tradition – i.e., the strongest censure stemming from those within traditions sceptical of positivist positions. He goes on to list the blocks of scholars attributed to a tradition, and their subsequent assessment of the direction of the literature. Such variance exhibited within any block of scholarship is of course to be expected, given one’s epistemological and ontological positions, and subsequent logic and acceptance of truths that stem from such positions.

However, providing a brief overview of this spectrum here is useful in two respects. First, it offers a concise impression of the differing positions within the domain. Kuhn (1970) argues normal science must tirelessly venture to bring theory and fact towards nearer agreement. To do so however, it is important to understand the varied positions that not only represent respective truths, but the way these truths are unveiled. Anomalies arise through both ‘novelties of fact and novelties of discovery’, exposed in part through the advancements of instrumentation (Kuhn, 1970). As a part of the “institutional mechanism for shifting warranted beliefs” (Coats, 1969, p. 28), awareness of divergent beliefs – dominant and otherwise – is beneficial. The second reason is that SAP largely rejects the notion of duality – as already discussed in

- 85 -

section 2.3. Therefore, in commencing this second part of Chapter 2, an ideal starting point is to outline an understanding of the spectrum of assessments of the literature by clusters of scholarship before illuminating the assessments that have underpinned the development of my own research questions.

In clarifying assessments of the varied bodies of scholarship with the HRM- SHRM field, Pérez (2012) outlines both encouraging and critical assessments of the literature articulated by varied groups of scholars. His categorisation is a useful overview from which to frame the broad assessment of the status of SHRM. Accordingly, I will use Pérez’s (2012) assessment categories as the basis of my own overview.

2.6.2.1 Positive assessments of SHRM literature

Assessments that have the strongest positive perceptions of the agenda have been categorised as advocates of empiricist agendas. Assessments by Combs et al. (2006) in their meta-analysis, as well as evaluations by Becker and Huselid (2006) contend that the literature shows SHRM and performance has been proven beyond a doubt. Consequently, they advocate progression of the field through continued refinement of measurement. This essentially entails continuing to establish cumulative knowledge (Becker & Gerhart, 1996) while looking towards more precise measurement (Gerhart, 2007; Gerhart, Wright, Mahan, & Snell, 2000). Such an approach from this camp is seen as the best future path for the field (Pérez, 2012).

In another grouping classified as optimistic, a collection of scholars (Paauwe & Boon, 2009; Wall & Wood, 2005) takes a more cautious approach in their assessments. Here, interpretation of the evidence has been assessed as

- 86 -

showing a much weaker relationship between HRM and performance. More work is advocated by these scholars to resolve doubts - yet the results to date are seen as encouraging. Wall and Wood (2005), for example, argue that the evidence does not present a link, yet there is strong reason to believe such a link should exist. Their works call on a ‘big science’ approach to resolve this.

2.6.2.2 Critical assessments of SHRM literature

Pérez (2012) also outlines five clusters of critical SHRM assessment. The first concentration of censure stems from critical management scholarship, where these academics have largely denounced HRM as ‘management rhetoric’ (Keenoy, 1999; Legge, 1995b). The second cluster encompasses post- structuralism (Alvesson & Kärreman, 2007; Townley, 1993, 2005). Pérez (2012) notes that in this case, scholars have denounced HRM as an ‘identity control mechanism’. The works of these authors share some common connections with SAP scholarship - in that Townley (1993) has employed Foucault in her work on power and knowledge, while Alvesson and Kärreman (2007) approached their work on identity by incorporating micro activities and social structures.

In the case of the former, Foucault is a seminal social theorist from which SAP draws theoretical positions, while in the latter the approach taken towards identity and the socially situated activities has garnered much interest in SAP. The third group of criticisms towards HRM scholarship outcomes has come from critical realists (Pérez, 2012). Commentary towards scholarship from this quarter has highlighted simplistic handlings of causality and issues with the

- 87 -

theoretical underpinnings of research directions (Edwards & Wright, 2001; Hesketh & Fleetwood, 2006).

The last group is referred to as ‘analytical HRM’ (Boxall, Purcell, & Wright, 2007). As a number of these scholars have been in the SHRM domain for a significant amount of time, they have presented levels of scepticism at various points about the sustainability of dominant research agendas that examine links with performance. These concerns extend to the methodological weaknesses in addressing HRM and SHRM (Boxall, 2012, 2014; Wright & Gardner, 2003; Wright & Nishii, 2013) and the lack of sound models to show the impact of HRM, despite the significant amounts of time that have been devoted to SHRM (Guest & Conway, 2011; Purcell & Kinnie, 2007). This body of scholarship in many respects appeals to the practicality of SAP, and the desire to address deeper and richer elements of HRM.

The overall critical assessments illustrated above are situated across many separate areas - differing in focus and degree. While critical concerns have not concentrated on mass around a single umbrella of unified direction for

remedy, commentary across the spectrum does share common themes. As I will illustrate in the following sections, SAP has shared many of these

concerns when addressing scholarship in the strategic management space. It is not surprising that strategic management’s younger cousin, SHRM, arrived at a not too dissimilar position – albeit somewhat later.

SAP has made strong inroads into questions traditional scholarship had not been able to address; establishing an extensive agenda. Within the broader HRM field in which Björkman et al. (2014) have illustrated, many

- 88 -

fundamental similarities of the SAP agenda are called for within elements of HRM. With Björkman et al. (2014) putting forward their HRM-as-practice agenda, they have presented strong arguments that SAP approaches are beneficial when attending to the intersection of role theory and SHRM, and more particularly, how strategy is done.

This agenda has been specifically attentive to understanding the strategic elements of HRM better. Namely, gaining a better understanding of the actions that constitute strategic activity, and a desire to understand how the actions of strategy emerge as they do. Such an intersection is where my study is placed, and I will now assess the literature within the four intended areas of

contribution. I start with the first of my four contributions – incorporating diverse research methods.