THE FUTURE OF HR MANAGEMENT:

RESEARCH NEEDS AND DIRECTIONS

Mark V. Roehling, Wendy R. Boswell, Paula Caligiuri, Daniel

Feldman, Mary E. Graham, James P. Guthrie, Motohiro
Morishima, and Judith W. Tansky

The contributors to this special issue provide unique perspectives and insights about the future
of human resource management, and many of their ideas present opportunities for future re-
search. Our intent is to focus on identifying and briefly discussing the key needs and directions
suggested by these articles. The discussion is organized around four general themes: the HR
function and its impact, the roles of HR professionals, the value of HR competencies, and the
HR implications of globalization. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

The HR Function and Its Impact
Creating Market Value
A common theme throughout these articles
is that the HR function (defined as both the
department itself and the domain of activi-
ties that we call HR) is an organizational re-
source that can, and should, contribute to
firm-level competitive advantage and value
creation. The authors, however, place differ-
ent emphases on what perspectives, ap-
proaches, and/or practices are necessary for
HR’s potential to be realized.
Ulrich and Smallwood (p. 137) focus on
the need for HR to become more “investor-
literate.” Although these authors did not use
agency theory specifically in their analysis,
one could interpret their message as recom-
mending an agency theory lens. Agency the-
ory focuses on the potential costs associated
with a separation of principals (owners) and
agents (managers) (Eisenhardt, 1989). While
an agency theory perspective typically is ap-
plied in discussions of compensation, the Ul-
rich and Smallwood approach expands its ap-
plication to decisions regarding staffing,
performance management, and training and
development. They believe that HR activities
need to positively impact intangible value, as
reflected in the premium the market is will-
ing to pay above a firm’s earnings and book
value. This perspective is consistent with an
“investor-literate” approach to HR as well as
with previous arguments in the strategic
HRM (SHRM) literature (e.g., Becker,

Correspondence to: Mark V. Roehling, School of Labor & Industrial Relations, 429 SKH, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, MI 48824, (517) 355-3335, roehling@msu.edu

Human Resource Management, Summer 2005, Vol. 44, No. 2, Pp. 207–216
© 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).
DOI: 10.1002/hrm.20066
208 • HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Summer 2005
Huselid, Pickus, & Spratt, 1997; Delery &
Doty, 1996; Welbourne & Cyr, 1999; Wright
& Snell, 1999) While these studies examine
the relationship between HR and firm per-
formance outcomes in large samples of firms,
The HR they do not specifically study how HR prac-
function is tices directly affect intangibles. We are still
transforming its missing the content of the infamous “black
focus from the
management of
box” (i.e., knowledge of exactly how HR im-
human pacts people to drive market value).
resources to the Future research, then, needs to more di-
development rectly examine the overall process that explains
and mainte- the relationship between HR activities and
nance of
firms’ market value. How does HR impact firm
organizational
effectiveness. value? Does the market recognize and value
being an “employer of choice” (e.g., being
anointed as one of Fortune’s “Top 100 Em-
ployers”) as an “intangible asset”? Or do “em-
ployer of choice” HR policies and practices im-
pact market valuations indirectly by affecting
human capital, social capital, employee reten-
tion, and productivity? While some prelimi-
nary evidence exists on these issues (e.g.,
Chauvin & Guthrie, 1994; Fulmer, Gerhart, &
Scott, 2003), many issues remain unresolved.
There is also reason to believe that in-
dustry conditions, such as technological in-
tensity or capital intensity, may constrain or
facilitate the potential impact of HR on mar-
ket value. For example, Ulrich and Small-
wood emphasize the relationship between
market value and traditional organizational
drivers such as physical assets and earnings.
However, this relationship varies substan-
tially across industries, and it is likely that
the ability to positively manage intangible as-
sets also varies across industries. Thus, a
“new economy” industry (e.g., computer
services) has an average price to earnings
(P/E) ratio of 41.79 and a price-to-book ratio
of 6.54, whereas an “old economy” industry
(e.g., auto and truck manufacturing) has a
P/E ratio of 9.76 and a price-to-book ratio of
1.56 (“Industry Summary,” 2004). Is the po-
tential impact of HR on intangible assets as
great in auto and truck manufacturing as it is
in computer services?
Enhancing Organizational Capabilities
The HR function is transforming its focus
from the management of human resources to
the development and maintenance of organi-
zational effectiveness. Ulrich and Smallwood
emphasize organizational capabilities as an
HR outcome critical for superior organiza-
tional performance and a key HR deliverable
around which this transformation should
take place. The concept of organizational ca-
pabilities is supported by logical arguments
and has considerable intuitive appeal. How-
ever, much remains uninvestigated. For in-
stance, we have a poor understanding of the
organizational capabilities required for orga-
nizational competitiveness and of how the
HR function must transform to deliver these
outcomes. Numerous lists identifying impor-
tant organizational capabilities have been
proposed, but few have been examined em-
pirically in research settings.
It has also been argued that since orga-
nizational capabilities are deeply rooted in
human resource capabilities (e.g., employee
attitudes and social networks), HR is best
positioned to deliver these outcomes. Yet, we
know very little about how HR can deliver
these outcomes. This knowledge gap re-
quires research designed to identify a set of
organizational capabilities that can serve as
deliverables for HR in the twenty-first cen-
tury, as well as ways in which HR can be de-
signed and practiced to enhance these capa-
bilities.
Research of this type should focus on
several areas. First, the relationship between
organizational capabilities and organizational
effectiveness, however defined, needs to be
established. As a practical matter, showing
the link to organizational effectiveness may
be the only way to convince those HRM pro-
fessionals who are change-resistant to think
in organizational capability terms. Here, the
contingency perspective is useful because a
set of organizational capabilities that leads to
effectiveness is likely to depend on a host of
organizational, strategic, and environmental
characteristics. A contingency approach
should also be followed by researchers when
determining the appropriate level of analysis
(e.g., firm, business unit) for assessing the
relationship between organizational capabili-
ties and “organizational effectiveness.”
A second focus should be on research
that moves past the simple identification of

organizational capabilities. One area for
study is the development of reliable tools
for their measurement. If we cannot meas-
ure organizational capabilities, it will be
very difficult to research this topic with
rigor. Another way to move beyond identifi-
cation is for researchers to evaluate how
HRM affects the development and mainte-
nance of organizational capabilities. This
type of research should examine functional
complementarities among individual HR
practices, treating HRM as a system of
practices or as a value chain that imparts
capabilities to organizations.
The Effect of Benchmarking and “Best
Practices” on Competitive Advantage
Armstrong (p. 195) discusses the important
role of professional organizations (such as
the World Federation of Personnel Manage-
ment Associations) in setting standards for
the profession and in identifying important
competencies. This description is consistent
with the institutional theory perspective that
views HR professionals as key promoters of
normative or “best practice” solutions that
lead to imitation across organizations, or
what DiMaggio and Powell (1983) call “nor-
mative isomorphism.” However, rather than
reflecting rational choices aimed at maximiz-
ing wealth or competitive advantage, institu-
tional theory views a firm’s choice of HR
practices as reflecting the firm’s attempt to
attain legitimacy in its broader external envi-
ronment. Institutional theory further argues
(supported by some empirical evidence) that
in exerting their influence on how organiza-
tions understand and respond to institutional
pressures, HR professionals are motivated, at
least in part, by their self-interest in estab-
lishing power within organizations (Edel-
man, 1992; Edelman, Uggen, & Erlanger,
1999).
The new institutional theory perspective
and the mixed evidence supporting the gen-
eralizability of a wide range of “best prac-
tices” raise important questions regarding
the effects of benchmarking and other forms
of best practice imitation on organizational
performance. For example, in overly pursu-
ing an imitation strategy, might not some
The Future of HR Management: Research Needs and Directions • 209
firms miss an alternative, differentiated strat-
egy that might be more effective? Do profes-
sional organizations and consulting firms ac-
tually reduce competitive advantage If we cannot
opportunities for HR by standardizing partic- measure
organizational
ular bundles of practices, thereby ignoring capabilities, it
potentially important contextual influences will be very
on the effectiveness of HR practices (Paauwe difficult to
& Boselie, 2003)? To what extent do political research this
considerations, HR professionals’ self-inter- topic with
rigor.
est, and the desire (if not need) for externally
legitimized “solutions” (rather than thought-
ful assessments of the recommended prac-
tice’s likely effectiveness) drive the adoption
and diffusion of HR “best practices”? These
and related questions regarding the practice
of “best practice” are deserving of researchers’
attention.
“Fit” with a Twist?
Most SHRM research focusing on “fit”
(alignment) has failed to find a positive ef-
fect for the fit between HR and firm strategy
(e.g., Arthur, 1994; Delery & Doty, 1996;
Huselid, 1995). SHRM researchers (e.g.,
Cascio, Boudreau, and Wright) continue to
talk about the importance of alignment/fit
between HR practices and firm strategy.
However, rather than looking at fit between
generic firm strategies (e.g., differentiator/in-
novator versus cost leader) and generic HR
practices (e.g., commitment-based HR ver-
sus control-based HR), newer models are be-
coming more specific. For example, align-
ment comes from HR practices that are
aimed at fostering/supporting the same orga-
nizationally relevant outcome (e.g., all aimed
at customer service). This research contrasts
with the early SHRM fit studies that focused
on generic HR practices and generic strate-
gies. While the refinements in the newer
SHRM appear well reasoned, these models
should be tested empirically.
The Impact of HR Technology
In many organizations, technology changes
have led to radical resource redeployment in
what managers do. Many of the reporting ac-
tivities performed previously by HR repre-
sentatives now can be performed by man-
210 • HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Summer 2005
agers online. On their desktops, managers
have access to everything needed to evaluate
employee costs, generate employee statistics
(e.g., turnover, absenteeism), conduct per-
formance appraisals, make merit-pay deci-
As the sions, and process training requests. Man-
complexity of agers speak with their HR representatives
HR grows, it is less frequently than in the past, and in doing
essential that
researchers
so may lose opportunities to learn from each
investigating the other. As managers’ responsibility for deliver-
relationship ing HR increases, what will happen to per-
between HR ceptions of the HR function, the ability of
and organiza- HR to play a strategic partner role, and, ulti-
tional outcomes
mately, the impact of HR on firm perform-
explicitly and
clearly define ance and other organizational outcomes?
their focal In theory, information technology should
construct. facilitate the role of HR as business partner
by simplifying the gathering of strategic data.
These data then can be analyzed in ways that
contribute to forming and implementing
business strategy (e.g., “workforce analytics”;
Greengard, 2003). However, a recent study
found that in nearly half of companies with a
completely integrated human resources infor-
mation system, HR was not viewed as a full
strategic partner (Lawler & Mohrman, 2003).
Although only one study, it highlights the
need for research investigating the extent to
which HR professionals effectively leverage
available technology in ways that increase
HR’s impact on important organizational out-
comes. Moreover, where HR professionals
are effectively leveraging technology, what
factors contribute to their success?
Finally, we encourage research examin-
ing the impact that the increased use of tech-
nology has on HR professionals’ evaluation
of their own jobs and careers. For example,
should we assume the increased use of tech-
nology by HR professionals in their work has
an enriching effect? Perhaps technology re-
sults in fewer meaningful personal interac-
tions of the kind valued by many HR profes-
sionals, thereby leading to lower job
satisfaction and/or career commitment. We
are unlikely to find simple answers that can
be generalized to all HR professionals. How-
ever, a better understanding of the impact
that technology has on HR professionals’ at-
titudes toward their jobs and profession may
assist in designing better informational tech-
nology for future use in HR activities.
The Importance of Defining HR
Managers’ growing involvement in transac-
tional HR, the trend toward outsourcing, and
the more prominent role that other depart-
ments (e.g., communications, marketing, fi-
nance, IT) are beginning to play in the deliv-
ery of HR products and services, are starting
to blur traditional notions of the boundaries
of “HR” or the “HR function.” Work once
understood to be in the domain of the HR
department increasingly is being performed
by senior leadership (i.e., tasks such as set-
ting the overall strategy for people, outsourc-
ing vendors using technology and scaleable
people resources to deliver services to all em-
ployees, performing the role of consultant
and executive coach to numerous individu-
als, and acting as an internal HR depart-
ment). Blurring of HR’s boundaries also oc-
curs when HR becomes involved in activities
traditionally associated with other organiza-
tional functions. For example, organizations
are focusing on brand management and are
providing considerable resources for internal
branding. Sometimes the “owner” of this
work is HR, but just as often, the communi-
cations and/or marketing departments are
doing this work.
As the complexity of HR grows, it is es-
sential that researchers investigating the re-
lationship between HR and organizational
outcomes explicitly and clearly define their
focal construct. Given the increasingly di-
verse ways that HR is manifest throughout
organizations, we view it as neither desirable
nor possible to attempt to offer “a” new defi-
nition of “HR” or the “HR function.” Rather,
our goal is to raise researchers’ awareness of
the issue and urge researchers to explicitly
address the issue in the design and reporting
of their own research. The challenge for re-
searchers is considerable. Researchers found
it difficult enough to assess the relationship
between HR and firm performance when
“HR” meant the HR department. Consider
how much more complex the model becomes
when the HR function is being delivered
more by a configuration of managers, em-
ployees from other functional areas (e.g.,
marketing, IT), vendors, consultants, and
outside coaches than by the HR department.

The development of a taxonomy identifying
the full range of individuals with HR respon-
sibilities in today’s workplace could be of
great assistance to researchers attempting to
clarify HR-organizational outcome relation-
ships in their own work, and in the research
of others.
The Roles of HR Professionals
Deliverer of Business Success
The HR literature reflects a well-placed em-
phasis on the strategic role of HR. Armstrong
(p. 195) and Cascio (p. 159) suggest that HR
must do more than simply partner with top
management, they must actively drive busi-
ness success. Several examples of HR func-
tions that appear to have made the transition
are found within this collection of articles
(e.g., SYSCO Corporation). However, addi-
tional systematic research is needed on firms
that have successfully transitioned from tra-
ditional HR to strategic partner and from
strategic partner to “business driver.” This re-
search can begin to form a road map for the
successful evolution of HR by answering
questions such as the following: What key
factors contribute to successful transforma-
tions? Is the successful evolution of the HR
function due to leadership within the HR
function, the vision or receptivity of the top
management teams, the firm’s unique
change management processes, or some
combination of these and other factors?
Changing Mental Models
Pfeffer (p. 123) offers a strong argument that
HR’s role in diagnosing and changing em-
ployees’ mind-sets and mental models is of
critical importance for organizational per-
formance and success. However, while the
concept of shared mental models has been
discussed in the managerial cognition litera-
ture for many years (e.g., Barr, Stimpert, &
Huff, 1992; Hufnagel, 1987), such models
remain difficult to identify and quantify em-
pirically. We need a better empirical handle
on this construct before it can gain much
currency in empirical research. What are the
key elements of shared mental models? What
The Future of HR Management: Research Needs and Directions • 211
level of agreement is needed before we can
say they are shared? Is it the “sharing” of the
mental models that is critical, or the adop-
tion of the right mental model by the top Research on
management team, whether or not other ex- employees’
mental models,
ecutives and employees share that vision? both from the
Are mental models meaningfully distinct perspective of
from other shared employee cognitions (e.g., diagnosis and
the “common understanding” referred to by change, should
Cascio, the “common sense of purpose” by have a multi-
level focus.
Dyer and Eriksen), and if so, how are mental
models different?
Research on employees’ mental models,
both from the perspective of diagnosis and
change, should have a multilevel focus. Per-
haps the greatest challenge for future re-
search on this topic will be the development
of creative qualitative methods to accurately
uncover mental models of individuals, teams,
and organizations. These research methods
are likely to be less traditional than current
quantitative methodologies that focus more
on observable behaviors and conscious atti-
tudes. As Pfeffer suggests, mind-sets are
“often deeply embedded and below the sur-
face of conscious thought” (p. 125), and the
best way to uncover the truth about mind-
sets may suggest projective techniques and
other qualitative methodologies.
Just as the diagnosis of mental models
will need to be better understood through fu-
ture research, so must the process through
which individuals, teams, and organizations
change their mental models. The vast social
psychological literature addressing the way
attitudes and values change may be useful
here. Given the focus on mind-set change, it
is imperative for future research in this area
to employ longitudinal designs to better un-
derstand the qualitative change, the trajecto-
ries of change, and the speed of change—all
useful information for organizational com-
petitiveness in the future.
Creating and Sustaining Organizational
Culture
The need for HR to create and sustain orga-
nizational cultures that promote the organi-
zation’s competitive advantage is reflected in
several of the articles in this special issue.
For example, Roberts and Hirsch (p. 171)
212 • HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Summer 2005
identify organizational cultures fostering in-
novation and entrepreneurship as a central
ingredient allowing firms to make the move
from Good to Great (Collins, 2001). Dyer
and Ericksen similarly identify cultural fit as
To contribute to a key variable in their model of the context
HR practice, for fostering HR scalability.
researchers Other researchers have described organi-
must move
beyond the
zational culture itself as a driver of HRM
description of policies and practices (Bowen & Ostroff,
the social 2004; Ferris et al., 1998). HRM policies and
network to the practices, in turn, have the potential to rein-
prediction of a force cultural norms and routines that can
social network.
shape individual performance and other im-
portant organizational outcomes. Further, it
has been argued that while organizational
culture and HR practices should be aligned,
the linkage between the two can be weak-
ened by a number of factors (e.g., legal con-
cerns, institutional forces, and internal poli-
tics) (Ferris et al., 1998).
The likely reciprocal relationship be-
tween organizational culture and HR prac-
tices—and the potential intervening fac-
tors—suggests that HR’s role in creating and
sustaining an organizational culture that pro-
motes their organization’s competitive advan-
tage will be even more daunting than the ar-
ticles in this special issue acknowledge. To
assist HR in meeting those challenges, there
is need for additional research comparing
HR’s role in organizations where the culture
and HR practices are observed to be aligned
and in those where there is a manifest mis-
alignment.
Facilitating Collaboration
In general terms, Losey, Meisinger, and Ul-
rich (p. 201) describe HR’s role in promoting
collaboration across boundaries as contribut-
ing to a critical organizational capability.
That HR role is elaborated in much greater
detail in Gratton’s “Model for Considering
Ties” (p. 151). Briefly, Gratton focuses on
the value-creation opportunities that occur
when people work cooperatively across
boundaries to contribute to a critical organi-
zational capability. In addition, she proposes
that HR has an essential role to play in fos-
tering the development of appropriate social
ties within and across organizational groups.
Gratton’s model should be explored
through an application of social network
analysis. Studies adapting this method tend
to describe the actual patterns of interaction
rather than prescribe the organizational work
relationships that should be developed (e.g.,
Totterdell, Wall, Holman, Diamond, &
Epitropak, 2004). To contribute to HR prac-
tice, however, researchers must move beyond
the description of the social network to the
prediction of a social network. According to
Gratton’s model, it is necessary to assess the
tools (organizational architecture, practices,
and processes) affecting the levers (proxim-
ity, time, motivation, and culture) that, in
turn, predict the network’s bonding and
bridging ties. Empirical testing of this model
requires a rather unwieldy multilevel analysis
employing social network data. While such
data are challenging to collect, the results
would contribute important knowledge to
our field.
HR Competencies
There is much discussion of the individual
competencies of HR professionals, both in
the present articles (e.g., Boudreau, Cascio,
Meisinger) and in the broader HR literature
(e.g., Buckley & Monks, 2004; Ulrich,
Brockbank, Yeung, & Lake, 1995). Under-
standably, most of the discussion and sup-
porting research to date has focused on
widely generalizable, core HR competencies.
While some efforts have been made to dif-
ferentiate the critical HR competencies
needed in various settings (e.g., Lawler, p.
165), there is a need for more research that
gives recognition to the job characteristics
and contextual factors likely to influence
both the relative importance of the various
competencies and the ease with which they
can be applied. The contextual factors in-
clude such firm-level decisions as the degree
of centralization of the human resources
function, the amount of resources devoted to
human resource management, and the hier-
archical position of particular HR profes-
sionals. For example, HR professionals in
firms with centralized decision making will
have less discretion to act strategically than
those in decentralized settings.

There is arguably an even greater need
for research examining how HR competen-
cies, once identified, can be most effectively
developed. Which HR competencies can be
acquired effectively through formal HR
training (i.e., HR graduate programs), and
which require experiential learning or signif-
icant on-the-job experience? Considerable
theoretical guidance for research addressing
these issues is available in the education and
training literatures.
Research regarding the effectiveness of
one type of formal HR training would seem
particularly likely to generate interest. For
example, HR certification programs, such as
those offered by the Society of Human Re-
source Management, have proliferated in re-
cent years, and it is suggested that HR certi-
fication will be a growing part of the future
of HR (see Losey, Meisinger, & Ulrich, p.
201). However, anecdotal evidence indicates
that some HR executives view broad certifi-
cation programs as offering little substantive
value in relation to the investment required
(compared to narrowly targeted seminars).
Beyond the acquisition of factual HR-rele-
vant knowledge that can be assessed by pen-
cil-and-paper tests, does the learning that oc-
curs in HR certification programs transfer to
the workplace and improve participants’ job
performance? Or is the primary benefit of
HR certification the effect it may have on at-
tendees’ personal outcomes (e.g., promotion
opportunities) through symbolic or “signal-
ing” processes?
Globalization
Globalization is a high-priority concern for
just about every organization (Wright &
Snell, p. 177) and a force that cuts across
the three preceding research themes. That
is, globalization has potential implications
for virtually all of the research needs and di-
rections we already have identified. For ex-
ample, HR’s ability to deliver business suc-
cess, and attempts to accomplish this goal,
are influenced by the increased competition
attributed to globalization. Also, the previ-
ously discussed research needs regarding
HR’s role in facilitating collaboration, creat-
ing and sustaining organizational culture,
The Future of HR Management: Research Needs and Directions • 213
and changing employees’ mental models
take on an additional level of complexity—
and potential contribution—when examined
in a global context. In addition to investigat- HR in global
ing the previously identified research gaps in firms must
understand how
global settings, the articles in this special to develop
issue suggest two additional research areas managers into
necessitated by globalization: developing effective global
global leaders and the legal environment of leaders.
global HR.
Developing Global Leaders
The importance of leadership development
as one of the key deliverables of HR has been
stressed in this issue (e.g., Roberts & Hirsch,
p. 171). Yet, when actually describing HR
practices designed to develop leaders and
construct an effective leadership pipeline in
an organization, we know relatively little
about what to do. This knowledge gap is par-
ticularly apparent for the challenges HR
faces in transforming domestic, ethnocentric
managers into effective global leaders. It is
not simply enough to know who effective
global leaders are and what they do. HR in
global firms must understand how to develop
managers into effective global leaders. While
some well-reasoned guidance is available
(e.g., Mendenhall, Jensen, Black, &
Gregersen, 2003), there is a need for sys-
tematic research in this area. Research that
combines career development (e.g., examin-
ing the careers of great global leaders and
what they have experienced) and leadership
research to produce information for HR
global practice would seem to be especially
promising.
The Legal Environment of Global HR
Ensuring compliance with applicable em-
ployment laws has been characterized as
both a core responsibility (Cascio, p. 159)
and a principal value (Wright & Snell, (p.
177)) in the future of HR. However, global-
ization and the resulting growth of multina-
tional employers make it increasingly diffi-
cult for HR professionals to fulfill that
responsibility and “live the value.” It is hard
enough keeping abreast of developments in
employment law in one country; few global
214 • HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Summer 2005

HR professionals have the time to follow
legal developments in the multiple countries
where they may be supporting their business.
Moreover, in international contexts, employ-
ment decisions that normally involve the
analysis of one country’s law may now re-
quire multiple, and sometimes conflicting,
legal analyses. As others have observed,
“Many of the legal dilemmas facing man-
agers in the global world of business have no
clear-cut answer” (Siedel, 2001, p. 629).
How is HR responding to this challenge?
Is the added level of legal complexity and un-
certainty faced by global HR executives hav-
ing adverse effects on their ability to carry
out other responsibilities? Or are global HR
professionals employing strategies that allow
them to effectively manage the challenges of
a global legal environment? For example, it
has been argued that because of the in-
creased complexity and uncertainty of em-
ployment laws, the effective management of
employment legal risk will require multina-
tional employers to increasingly focus on the
management of the employee-organization
relationship so as to promote goodwill to-
ward employers and avoid the types of nega-
tive interactions that lead to claiming behav-
ior by employees (Shore et al., 2004). This
strategy is supported by theory and research
in the justice literature regarding legal
claiming behavior (e.g., Goldman, 2003;
Groth, Goldman, Gilliland, & Bies, 2002)
and is consistent with the approaches to the
employment relationship advocated by Tsui
and Wu (p. 115) and Dyer and Ericksen (p.
183). However, there is a need for more re-
search investigating the extent to which the
“good employee relations strategy” (or other
strategies for managing the legal environ-
ment of global HR, such as decentralizing
global HR) is actually being employed, and
with what effect.
Conclusion
The unique perspectives and insights pro-
vided by the authors of this special issue
combine to create a vision of the future of
HR that is both promising and challenging.
By addressing the research needs suggested
by that vision, we hope to assist the field of
HR in both understanding the future and
meeting its challenges.

Mark V. Roehling is an associate professor in the School of Labor and Industrial

Relations, Michigan State University. He received his PhD in human resource man-
agement from Michigan State University and his law degree from the University of
Michigan. Dr. Roehling’s research interests include legal studies in human resource
management, recruiting, choice job, and employee relations issues. His work has ap-
peared in academic journals (e.g., Personnel Psychology, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Human Resource Management, and Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal),
practitioner publications (e.g., Journal of Career Planning and Employment), and the
popular press (e.g., the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times).

Wendy R. Boswell is an assistant professor and Mays Research Fellow in the De-
partment of Management, Mays Business School, Texas A&M University. She earned
her PhD in human resource studies from the School of Industrial and Labor Relations
at Cornell University. Her research interests include employee attraction and reten-
tion, work-related stress, employee strategic alignment, and job search behavior.

Paula Caligiuri is the director of the Center for Human Resource Strategy (CHRS)
and an associate professor of human resources management at Rutgers University in the
School of Management and Labor Relations. She is also a visiting professor at Università
Bocconi School of Business in Milan, Italy. She researches, publishes, and consults in
three primary areas: strategic human resource management in multinational organiza-
tions, global leadership development, and global assignee management. She is on several
editorial boards and is an associate editor for Human Resource Management. She holds
a PhD from Penn State University in industrial and organizational psychology.
 The Future of HR Management: Research Needs and Directions • 215

Daniel Feldman is the Synovus Chair of Servant Leadership and director of the
Leadership Research Consortium at the University of Georgia. He is the current edi-
tor-in-chief of the Journal of Management and has served as chair of the Careers Di-
vision of the Academy of Management. Dr. Feldman is nationally recognized for his
research on career development and has authored six books and more than 100 arti-
cles on such topics as organizational entry, retirement planning, layoffs, and career
change. He holds a PhD from Yale University.

Mary E. Graham is a Newell Associate Professor in the School of Business at Clark-

son University. She earned her PhD from the School of Industrial and Labor Relations
at Cornell University, with concentrations in human resource studies and organiza-
tional behavior. Dr. Graham has publications on incentive pay programs, gender-re-
lated pay disparities, and perceptions of corporate reputation, including papers in the
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Organizational Research Methods, and Organiza-
tion Science.

James P. Guthrie is a professor of human resource management and Charles W. Os-

wald Faculty Fellow with the School of Business at the University of Kansas. He re-
ceived his BA and MBA from the State University of New York at Buffalo and his PhD
from the University of Maryland. He has also had visiting faculty appointments with
the University of Waikato in New Zealand, the Consortium of Universities for Inter-
national Business Studies in Italy, and the University of Limerick in Ireland. His cur-
rent research interests focus on reward systems and the relationship between human
resource management practices and firm effectiveness. He has published in a num-
ber of journals, including the Academy of Management Journal, the Academy of Man-
agement Review, the Strategic Management Journal, the Journal of Management, and
Human Resource Management.

Motohiro Morishima is currently a professor of human resource management,

Graduate School of Commerce and Management, Hitotsubashi University, where he
also serves as the director of the MBA program. His recent research has focused on
the impacts, on both firm and employee performance, of the changes in human re-
source management systems in Japanese corporations. In addition to his university
appointment, he also holds a position as a senior researcher at the Japan Institute of
Labour Policy. He holds a PhD from the University of Illinois.

Judith W. Tansky is a senior lecturer in labor and human resources in the Max M.
Fisher College of Business at Ohio State University. She earned a PhD in labor and
human resources with a minor in organizational behavior from Ohio State University.
Her primary areas of research, teaching, and consulting are human resources in small
and entrepreneurial firms, compensation, and employee development.

REFERENCES Spratt, M. F. (1997). HR as a source of share-

Arthur, J. B. (1994). Effects of human resource sys-
tems on manufacturing performance and
turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 37,
670–687.
Barr, P. S., Stimpert, J. L., & Huff, A. S. (1992).
Cognitive change, strategic action, and organi-
zational renewal. Strategic Management Jour-
nal, 13, 15–37.
Becker, B. E., Huselid, M. A., Pickus, P. S., &
holder value: Research and recommendations.
Human Resource Management, 31, 39–47.
Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding
HRM-firm performance linkages: The role of
the “strength” of the HRM system. Academy of
Management Review, 29, 203–221.
Buckley, F., & Monks, K. (2004). The implications
of meta-qualities for HR roles. Human Re-
source Management Journal, 14, 41–56.
Chauvin, K. C., & Guthrie, J. P. (1994). Labor mar-
216 • HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Summer 2005
ket reputation and the value of the firm. Man-
agerial and Decision Economics, 15, 543–552.
Collins, J. (2001). From good to great. New York:
HarperCollins.
Delery, J. E., & Doty, D. H. (1996). Modes of theo-
rizing in strategic human resource manage-
ment: Tests of universalistic, contingency, and
configurational performance predictions. Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 39, 802–835.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron
cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and
collective rationality in organizational fields.
American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.
Edelman, L. B. (1992). Legal ambiguity and sym-
bolic structures: Organizational mediation of
civil rights law. American Journal of Sociology,
87, 1531–1576.
Edelman, L. B., Uggen, C., & Erlanger, H. S.
(1999). The endogeneity of legal regulations:
Grievance procedures as rational myth. Ameri-
can Journal of Sociology, 105, 406–454.
Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Agency theory: An assess-
ment and review. Academy of Management Re-
view, 14, 57–74.
Ferris, G. R., Arthur, M. M., Berkson, H. M., Ka-
plan, D. M., Harrell-Cook, G., & Frink, D. D.
(1998). Toward a social context theory of the
human resource management-organization ef-
fectiveness relationship. Human Resource
Management Review, 8, 235–264.
Fulmer, I. S., Gerhart, B., & Scott, K. S. (2003). Are
the 100 best better? An empirical investigation
of the relationship between being a “great place
to work” and firm performance. Personnel Psy-
chology, 56, 965–993.
Goldman, B. M. (2003). The application of referent
cognitions theory to legal-claiming by termi-
nated workers: The role of organizational justice
and anger. Journal of Applied Psychology, 29,
705–721.
Greengard, S. (2003). Analyze this. Workforce, 82,
58–63.
Groth, M., Goldman, B. M., Gilliland, S. W., & Bies,
R. J. (2002). Commitment to legal claiming: In-
fluences of attributions, social guidance, and
organizational tenure. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 87, 781–788.
Hufnagel, E. M. (1987). Developing strategic com-
pensation plans. Human Resource Manage-
ment Journal, 26, 93–109.
Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human re-
source management practices on turnover, pro-
ductivity, and corporate financial performance.
Academy of Management Journal, 38, 635–672.
Industry summary. (2004). Retrieved October 24,
2004, from http://biz.yahoo.com/p/sum_prid.html
Lawler, E. E., & Mohrman, S. A. (2003). HR as a
strategic partner: What does it take to make it
happen? Human Resource Planning, 26,
15–29.
Mendenhall, M., Jensen, R., Black, J. S., &
Gregersen, H. (2003). Seeing the elephant: HR
challenges in the age of globalization. Organiza-
tional Dynamics, 3, 261–274.
Paauwe, J., & Boselie, P. (2003). Challenging
“strategic HRM” and the relevance of institu-
tional setting. Human Resource Management
Journal, 13(3), 56–70.
Shore, L. M., Tetrick, L. E., Taylor, S. J., Coyle-
Shapiro, J., Eisenberger, R., Folger, R., et al.
(2004). The employment relationship. In G. R.
Ferris & J. Martocchio (Eds.), Research in per-
sonnel and human resources management (Vol.
22, pp. 291–370). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Siedel, G. J. (2001). Legal complexity in cross-bor-
der subsidiary management. Texas International
Law Journal, 36, 611–631.
Totterdell, P., Wall, T., Holman, D., Diamond, D.,
& Epitropak, O. (2004). Affect networks: A
structural analysis of the relationship between
work ties and job-related affect. Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology, 89, 854–867.
Ulrich, D., Brockbank, W., Yeung, A. K., & Lake, D.
G. (1995). Human resource competencies: An
empirical assessment. Human Resource Man-
agement, 34, 473–496.
Welbourne, T., & Cyr, L. (1999). The human re-
source executive in initial public offering
firms. Academy of Management Journal, 42,
616–629.
Wright, P. M., & Snell, S. A. (1999). Toward a uni-
fying framework for exploring fit and flexibility
in strategic human resource management.
Academy of Management Review, 23, 756–772.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.