LOS PROCESOS DE PARTICIPACÓN PÚBLICA

I will start my assessment of the extant literature of research methods by noting the low number of qualitative studies undertaken across the domain. This is something my study aims to address. For example, in Purcell’s (1999) review of studies attending to best practice and best fit, he criticises the conclusions that these studies draw - based on methodological concerns. He argues that methodological challenges, and even misalignments, are

entrenched within these bodies of work. Purcell’s (1999) concluding remarks note3_{: “this is less a statement of the obvious, since for years it has been}

ignored, but more an injunction to provide tools of analysis for both process and content in establishing the link between strategic change and HR” (p .38).

Purcell’s statement has continued to hold true in subsequent critical

evaluations. In a comprehensive review of HR articles, Boselie et al. (2005) remark that in spite of Purcell’s (1999) call for greater utilisation of qualitative research methods, research that employed quantitative survey methods all but dominated the domain. Very recent HRM agendas such as Jackson et al. (2014) illustrate that the abetment of calls for qualitative approaches

continues, as contributions still remain low. HRM scholarship stemming from the United States has predominately embraced positivist paradigms (McKenna et al., 2008). The attention of such work has therefore focused on cause and

3 _{Purcell was remarking on a core strategic management principle discussed by Johnson and Scholes (1997) that}

concisely articulates a central element of his thesis. This was the importance of integrating HR policies with organisational strategy and strategic change. The significance being that the outcome of such integration in turn produces employees who can block or enable future strategic change. This alludes to the nexus of people, process and outcome being reflexive.

- 93 -

effect and statistical application that result in linear thinking (Brewster, 1999; Mendenhall, 1999).

In understanding how the formulation and implementation of strategy occurs we must consider different business units’ contextual realities and employee group involvement. A better way to view this process is not through a linear snap shot – which may omit many of the people within the process as the picture is taken, but rather through a longitudinal map that illustrates and explains the erratic path to such outcomes (Langley, 1999). This approach focuses on the steps of the journey in arriving at a destination, rather than the destination itself (Cook & Brown, 1999). Jackson et al. (2014) have called for practice-friendly research including SAP as “the reliance on surveys that ask anonymous respondents to answer generic questions is pervasive and

problematic” (Jackson et al., 2014, p. 36). Achieving greater intimacy with participants through qualitative methods is required to achieve new insights (Jackson et al., 2014). This can complement the dominant line of scholarship that attends to testing variance theories (Langley, 1999).

Complex phenomena surrounding the decision to implement a change, and how the subsequent change comes about over time, can be highly fluid and contextual in nature (Eisenhardt, 1989b; Langley, 1999; Pettigrew, 1992). It is precisely for these reasons that context is embraced within qualitative research methods (Langley, 1999; Pettigrew, 1992; Yin, 1994). However, within

scholarship that addresses HR strategic implementation, studies have largely used survey methods (cf. Guest & Conway, 2011; Huselid et al., 1997) in which results are presented at the organisational level (Woodrow & Guest,

- 94 -

2014). In a recent study, Woodrow and Guest (2014) claim their work provides methodological contribution to the literature based on their study using mixed methods. Their argument for this contribution rests with their study varying from the extensive amounts of survey based quantitative scholarship. They further comment that such an approach enabled the use of multiple data sources, and accordingly a methodological contribution.

Jackson et al. (2014), paradoxically to their calls for new research methods, note the dangers of an indefinite craving to pursue new methods within the dominant paradigm of variance models. Unchecked desires directed at increasing robustness of measurements, and stronger research design, has the ability to direct attention away from substitutive issues (Jackson et al., 2014). My proposed SAP lens to HRM enquiry constitutes ‘new research methods’ that can answer multi-level HRM research questions suited to the discovery of multi-level relationships (Renkema et al., 2016). Such an approach has

received insufficient attention from HRM, and is required to unearth new insights into multi-level HRM beyond the often used methods of multi-level structural equation modelling (Renkema et al., 2016).

In the strategic management domain, the pursuit of such refinement of variance models was assessed to constitute the beginnings of a journey to a theoretical cul-de-sac by critical scholars such as Johnson et al. (2003a). Critical positions within the broader HRM scholarship draw parallels – albeit not united under the one umbrella that SAP has subsequently managed to establish. Ferris et al. (2004), for example, advocate the use of alternative paradigms from which they contend the limited dominant ontological

- 95 -

positions within the domain would benefit. McKenna et al. (2008) advocate this belief, but support the use of a mutually supportive approach which supports work within the broader agenda. Such a position is also shared by SAP – in that there is an opposition to duality. Ferris et al. (2004) argues the limited value by creating dichotomous streams of research, particularly ‘micro’ vs ‘macro’ opposition. They note there is little to be gained by creating artificial boundaries.

It is in this respect that SAP, and Bjorkman et al.’s (2014) HRM-as-practice agenda, promotes inclusiveness, rather than a micro-macro divide. SHRM has both micro issues and macro – increasing employee motivation in the case of the former, and organisational performance in the latter (Ferris et al., 2004). Accordingly, where role theory and SHRM are separate bodies of scholarship, both attend to areas surrounding strategy. While my research questions rest on the divide between these two bodies of scholarship, they pertain directly to strategic issues of HRM - both at the micro and macro. The cross fertilisation of various veins of scholarship advocated by Mintzberg and Lampel (1999b) (as a means of the blind men being able to describe the entire elephant) is something that HRM-as-practice certainly seeks to achieve – as does this thesis. Holistic research through the employment of qualitative methods offers a means for future refinements once broader work is established.

For example, Ostroff and Bowen (2016) have called for the

reconceptualisation to measurement approaches within HRM systems - directing scholars to be mindful of higher contextual levels of analysis. Renkema et al. (2016) argue the value of using a qualitative case study to do

- 96 -

so. They argue that by doing so, two ends can be achieved. The first being obtaining a better understanding of “why relationships hold, or not”, while the second is what occurs after this is understood. Once establishing why

relationships hold, the opportunity exists to “deepen the understanding of the dynamics underlying the relationship… [as to] create a nest environment in which other research methods and techniques can be applied to answer more- specific research questions within a holistic enquiry” (p. 241).

The employment of such approaches also aligns to the goals and objectives of the body of scholarship referred to as Analytical HRM (Boxall, 2014; Boxall et al., 2007). Early empirical contributions to using this practice approach have come from Pérez (2012), but to the best of my understanding this

remains the only work. This vein of scholarship also embraces the inclusion of micro and macro issues. Boxall (2014) notes that he himself, along with John Purcell and Patrick Wright, have sought “a rigorous understanding of the contexts, processes and outcomes of managing work and people in

organisations. [Analytical HRM therefore] aims to understand what managers do in HRM, why they do it, how they go about it and who benefits from it” (p. 581).

Methodologically, analytical HRM advocates improved methods, with the inclusion of multiple levels of analysis and multiple sources of data (Boxall, 2014; Paauwe, 2009). Boxall (2014) argued, methodologically, that it was time to look behind the curtain to see how the interpretation of policies is occurring, and this goes beyond simply counting practices through managers

- 97 -

reporting them. He argues for exploring a deeper level that incorporates psychological and social dynamics.

In regards to determining what being strategic entails to various stakeholder groups, moving beyond dichotomies of strategic or functional activity (Björkman et al., 2014) also coincides with analytical HRM logics and methodological requirements. There is a need to go deeper into psychological and social practices – what Boxall (2014) refers to as ‘behind the veil’. HR business partner competencies are increasingly being seen as overarching competencies (Caldwell, 2008) that are aligned to dealing with future contexts, strategic action and dynamic change (Buckley & Monks, 2004; Caldwell, 2008; Higgs & Rowland, 2000; Vloeberghs, 1998). Such rationale needs to be applied to the relationship and value between the HRF and their partners themselves. Caldwell (2008) notes that such elements are non-linear and emergent by construct, and accordingly are difficult to define and

incorporate into positivist models. The resulting concern for epistemological adequacy of behaviour models addressing the development of business partners therefore emerges (Antonacopoulou & FitzGerald, 1996; Caldwell, 2008; Finch-Lees, Mabey, & Liefooghe, 2005; Le Deist & Winterton, 2005).

I seek to make two methodological contributions within my thesis. The first is to the general field, laying claim to the merit of a qualitative scholarship contribution – in the same manner as Woodrow and Guest (2014) claimed the value of their qualitative contribution. The utilisation of a finer grained

alternative analysis has further been called for (Björkman et al., 2014; Jackson et al., 2014; Renkema et al., 2016) as greatly needed.

- 98 -

Such finer grained alternative analysis have been sought in the form of rigorous case-study techniques by Renkema et al. (2016) as a means to uncover multi-level HRM performance connections that are contextually bounded, allowing “higher-order constructs [to] emerge over space and time” (p. 214). Such an approach takes steps towards addressing the

reconceptualisation of HRM system measurement. These attend to the context attached with higher level analysis called for by Ostroff and Bowen (2016). Case study methods are regularly employed in SAP empirical research with rich methodological and theoretical resources available. The second

methodological contribution I therefore make to the field is the application of a HRM-as-practice perspective (Björkman et al., 2014). This thesis would be only one of a few bodies of work to utilise such an approach with HRM and subsequently contribute to this nascent approach of HRM scholarship. Such an approach has conceptually presented value in its ability to address the

interconnection between the HRM-performance link and the micro-structures that surround HR practices, the views of practitioners, and their behaviours (Renkema et al., 2016).