2014 - HRMR - Research and Practice in HRM-a Historical Perspective

Human Resource Management Review 24 (2014) 219–231
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Human Resource Management Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/humres
Research and practice in HRM: A historical perspective

Angelo S. DeNisi ⁎, Michael S. Wilson, James Biteman
A.B. Freeman School of Business, Tulane University, United States
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Keywords: The field of Human Resource Management began, formally, in the early days of the 20th century.
Research-practice gap At the outset, research and practice in the field were virtually synonymous, and there were clear
Institutional Theory links between the two. But there seems to be consensus that research and practice have diverged
International HRM
over recent decades and there have been numerous papers that have pointed this out, and which
Social responsibility and sustainability
have also suggested ways to bring the two sides into better alignment. The present paper joins the
Diversity
ranks of those who have noted this divergence, but we also propose a model of the forces leading
to that divergence that deal with forces operating on both researchers and managers. This analysis
results in some different conclusions about the nature of the divergence, as well as suggestions for
how to bring the two sides back together.
© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The field of Human Resource Management, formerly known as personnel has a long history in terms of both research and
practice. If one goes back to the earliest days of this field, there was a close tie between research and practice but, at some point in
that history, the two sets of activities seemed to have diverged. As a result, for quite a number of years, there has been a concern
that practice does not follow the best information from research, and that researchers study issues of interest to other researchers
rather than of interest to practitioners. In the present paper, we will briefly review the history of both the research and the
practice of Human Resource Management, taking special care to note when the two began to diverge. We will then discuss some
of the reasons we believe this divergence has taken place, even suggesting a simple model of the forces that may have led to this
divergence. But this model differs from some of the other work dealing with this issue. While we agree with others that
researchers should study issues more relevant to managers, and communicate their findings more clearly, we also believe there
are additional, and more complex forces at work, and that these forces operate on both parties in the divide.
2. Some historical roots of HR practice
The first recorded modern case of dedicating a separate unit or department for HRM is from 1901 in USA. The National Cash
Register Co. fought and won a battle with unions, but the president of the company realized that something had to be done to
prevent such battles in the future. He therefore organized a personnel department dedicated to improving worker relations by
properly handling employee grievances, discharges, safety and other employee issues. The threat of unionization was historically,
one of the most important reasons for companies to establish such departments but, in many cases, the personnel department
functioned more as a record-keeping office than as part of a strategy to keep out unions. In this regard, the situation at Ford was
probably typical of how most personnel departments grew. Before 1914, Ford was paying its unskilled workers $2.34 for a
nine-hour day of physically demanding work. First line supervisors were responsible for hiring employees, but the low wages and
demanding work resulted in an annual turnover rate of 400%, which meant these managers were devoting a lot of time and effort
⁎ Corresponding author at: A.B. Freeman School of Business, Tulane University, 7 McAlister Drive, New Orleans, LA 70118, United States. Tel.: +1 504 865 5414.
E-mail address: adenisi@tulane.edu (A.S. DeNisi).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2014.03.004
1053-4822/© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
220 A.S. DeNisi et al. / Human Resource Management Review 24 (2014) 219–231
to hiring. When Ford raised the wages paid to $5.00 for an 8 hour day in 1914, the number of applicants became so overwhelming
that Ford set up an Employment Department to handle hiring. Similar operations were established at places like GM and
Bethlehem Steel, with the (more typically called) personnel department keeping records on who was hired and when, what work
was assigned and what wages to be paid. During these times, the prevailing management theory was Scientific Management
(Taylor, 1911) which focused on making workers more efficient and thus, more productive.
Things began to change with the Hawthorne Studies (Mayo, 1933; Roethlisberger, 1934; Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1943),
carried out by Western Electric between 1927 and 1935, at its Hawthorne plane near Chicago (by then, the First World War had
already given birth to basic selection tests, but we will discuss that further below). The details of those studies are well-known
and don't bear repeating here, but they gave rise to what became known as the Human Relations Era. What is important to note,
however, is that the Hawthorne Studies and the resulting Human Relations movement argued that employee attitudes were
related to productivity. Thus, major companies began to see some potential value in keeping their employees happy, and this task
fell to the personnel department. Of course, by the 1930s organized labor began to grow in the U.S., and employers concluded (as
did National Cash Register some years earlier) that, not only might “happy” workers be more productive, they might also less
likely to join unions. Thus, by the 1940s, self-contained personnel departments were becoming much more common, and they
were charge with hiring and developing employees, as well as making sure they were kept relatively happy.
The Second World War brought renewed interest in finding ways to maximize the match between persons and jobs, and
psychologists were employed to help screen, select and place soldiers. When the war ended, these practices were transferred to
the private sector, and so personnel practices became more sophisticated. The post-war growth of labor unions resulted in more
complex benefits that had to be administered as well, and so the personnel function became even more sophisticated. But, for all
that, personnel departments were seen as necessary evils rather than as valued contributors to the organization, and the “best and
the brightest” rarely went into personnel.
The 1964 passage of the Civil Rights Act was a game changer for the personnel function. Now organizations realized that they
could be sued (for very large amounts) if they did not follow the law regarding how people were recruited, selected and then
treated on the job (See, for example, Arvey & Faley, 1988, for a review of the major court cases involved). Companies could no
longer use the personnel department a dumping ground for ineffective employees — now they needed trained professionals to
make sure they obeyed the law while still functioning as a profitable enterprise.
By the 1980s, more enlightened managers came to realize that, if they hired the “right” people, trained them and reward them
properly, these employees could actually be the source of some competitive advantage. This resulted in employees being seen as
assets, or resources, rather than simply as costs, and thus we began referring to them as human resources, and the personnel
managers became known as Human Resource (HR) Managers. The importance of these human resources grew in importance as
global competition became more serious, until by the end of the 20th century, HR managers were finally being considered more as
strategic partners rather than as simple compliance officers. Although there was still a way to go before they would all be
considered true strategic partners, this is the role that more HR managers are moving into today (Lawler & Mohrman, 2003).
3. HR research and its ties to practice
Research in HR began in organizations, and was aimed at solving organizational problems. That is, not only was there no
divergence between research and practice, the two were in fact in perfect alignment. Just prior to the First World War, Binet and
Simon had developed the first standardized Intelligence tests in France, and in 1913, Hugo Munsterberg published his book
(Munsterberg, 1913), which was the first to systematically apply psychological principles to the work setting. When the United States
prepared to enter the war the government hired psychologists to administer intelligence tests used to classify new recruits. After the
war, research on performance appraisal began with field studies examining ways to reduce halo error in ratings (e.g., Rudd, 1921;
Thorndike, 1920). Also, the Hawthorne Studies themselves were conducted by academicians trying to improve productivity.
Studies conducted throughout the 1930s continued to be closely tied to practice and many were concerned with new ways to
select employees (e.g., Strong, 1938; Wonderlic & Hovland, 1939). Early texts, such as Scott, Clothier, and Spriegel (1941) used
findings from studies conducted in organizations to make recommendations for how employees should be selected, placed and
evaluated, and World War II brought research and practice even closer. These close ties continued through the 1950s and early 1960s,
with many studies continued to be devoted to developing new and better selection techniques (see, for example, Guion, 1965),
improving interviews (e.g., Bolster & Springbett, 1961; Daniels & Otis, 1950), and developing better ways to measure performance at
work (e.g., Kay, Meyer, & French, 1965; Taylor & Wherry, 1951). These topics dominated academic journals such as Personnel
Psychology and the Journal of Applied Psychology, and the vast majority of the studies conducted involved real employees in real
organizations. It also seemed to be the case for research conducted primarily by scholars who identified themselves as being interested
in Industrial Relations, and those who identified themselves as being interested in Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
Through most of the 1960s and early 70s, as noted above, it was the Civil Rights Act and various court cases arising from that law,
which drove much of the research agenda (e.g., Gael & Grant, 1972; Humphreys, 1973; Moore, MacNaughton, & Osburn, 1969), but
this only served to strengthen the ties between HR research and practice. Also, during this period, researchers began investigating
even more sophisticated methods for conducting job analysis (e.g. McCormick, Jeanneret, & Mecham, 1972) for conducting interviews
(e.g., Mayfield & Carlson, 1966) for training employees (e.g., Campbell & Dunnette, 1968; Moses & Ritchie, 1976), for assessing
performance at work (e.g., Blanz & Ghiselli, 1972; Smith & Kendall, 1963), and, given the problems of establishing the job relatedness
of selection systems which suffered from adverse impact, new and improved approaches to test validation also became quite popular
(e.g., Pearlman, Schmidt, & Hunter, 1980; Schmidt, Ones, & Hunter, 1992). In addition, throughout the years since the Hawthorne
A.S. DeNisi et al. / Human Resource Management Review 24 (2014) 219–231 221
Studies, research continued to address the causes and results of job satisfaction (e.g., Hulin, 1968; Locke, 1976), and several new
models of workplace motivation were proposed and tested (e.g., Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959; Naylor, Pritchard, & Ilgen,
1980; Pritchard, Dunnette, & Jurgenson, 1972; Vroom, 1964).
In most cases, the close relationship between research and practice remained and was fairly obvious. To illustrate this, we
randomly chose a back issue of Personnel Psychology, and reviewed the contents of the March, 1966 issue. There nine articles, all
dealing with selection, validation, or equal employment issues; there were twelve authors, and only one – Norman Maier – was
an academician (from Michigan) and his paper was about attempts to deceive in interviews. This may have been an exception, but
the next issue (June 1966), consisted of three papers on some aspect of performance appraisal, and four on some aspect of job
satisfaction; of the thirteen authors involved, five were from industry or consulting, and eight from academia, including a paper
co-authored by a consultant and Columbia University professor (also, see more detailed analysis in Cascio & Aquinis, 2008).
Thus, historically, there was no gap between research and practice in HR. Many of the individuals writing scholarly papers
were either practicing managers, or were academicians with close ties to management consulting. But, in 1959, two reports were
published that, over time, would change things dramatically. The reports by Gordon and Howell (1959), and Pierson (1959)
would have an enormous impact on Business education in colleges and Universities. Although these two reports focused on
somewhat different issues, and, while the Pierson (1959) report is much more reserved in its tone, both sets of authors took
Business Schools to task regarding the levels of academic rigor in their programs. They criticized the faculty for spending too
much time consulting and not enough time doing our research; they criticized the coursework for relying too heavily on the field
experience without theory — making it more akin to learning a trade; and they called for more emphasis on broader educational
goals (including introducing liberal arts courses), a well as more theory and analysis and fewer case studies. The authors also
called for more reliance upon the liberal arts disciplines to provide some theoretical basis for research and teaching in Business.
4. The gap between research and practice grows
But, of course, it was exactly because business school faculty taught from cases, and relied upon consulting work to write their
papers, that HR research was so closely aligned with HR practice. Business Schools took the recommendations in these reports to
heart, and business curricula as well as business faculty, began to change. Business Schools sought academic credibility within
their Universities, and so encouraged faculty to engage in more basic and theoretical research, and the schools hired more faculty
from liberal arts disciplines (especially psychology and economics) who could do just that.
Thus, beginning sometime in the late 1970s, and escalating thereafter, HR research began to move away from HR practice.
Some (e.g., Bennis & O'Toole, 2005) specifically blame to the two 1959 reports for this trend and for therefore leading Business
Schools astray from their true mission. But, in any case, business research became increasingly theory-driven, and case studies
were less valued at most schools. Many new faculty came from psychology or economics with strong theories, but no experience
in management of HR. Business schools were gaining academic credibility within their University communities, but it came at the
price of alienating them from practicing HR managers. Journals that were more highly valued emphasized theory and elegant
arguments, rather than real-world applications. It is interesting to note that the Academy of Management Journal, much more
closely associated with Business Schools than with Psychology, requires a strong theoretical base for all publications, which takes
the papers published there another step further away from ties to practice.
Since faculty who wanted to be successful and gain tenure, had to publish in these prestigious journals, they adapted their
interests and the focus of their research, and they trained new Ph.D.s to be able to publish in these journals. Furthermore, as the
number of HR journals grew, there was some tendency of journals to compete by trying to outdo each other in terms of how
theoretical the papers they published should be, with more prestigious journal putting increasingly greater emphasis on theory (cf.
Colquitt & Zapata-Phela, 2007). Furthermore, there have been authors who have suggested that scholars conducting HR-related
research should not worry about having an impact on practice, but that they should do research for its own sake (e.g., Hulin, 2001).
As a result, we can see marked difference in terms of who authored papers in major journals over time. We no longer saw
issues such as the two random issues we discussed above. Instead, as demonstrated by Cascio and Aquinis (2008), there has been
a dramatic decrease in the number of papers published in scholarly journals by non-academicians. As can be seen from their data,
this trend exists even in journals such as Personnel Psychology, which was traditionally a journal that was closely tied to HR
practice, and, for a long time, retained an Editorial Board structure that included practicing managers. But, today, that journal's
Editorial Board consists of 86 members, and only two of them are non-academics. We will discuss cases, later, where there is still
convergence between the interests of scholars and practitioners (also, see Rousseau & Boudreau, 2011) but, such cases are clearly
the exception, and it is clear that something has happened.
In fact, there have been an increasing number of papers and books dealing with the divergence of research and practice, and many
authors have expressed concerns over this divergence. For example, in one, often cited paper (Rynes, Colbert, & Brown, 2002) found
that most HR managers surveyed simply did not agree with the effectiveness of various HR practices that had been well-established in
the academic literature. They expressed more faith and confidence in theories and methods that had long been discredited by
research findings. Recent interest in establishing “evidence based management” (e.g., Rousseau, 2006), is an attempt to deal with this
gap, but there have also been a number of authors who have recently proposed reasons for the gap between research and practice in
HR, and who have also suggested ways to bridge the gap (e.g., Cascio, 2007; Cohen, 2007; Deadrick & Gibson, 2007; Guest, 2007;
Latham, 2007; Lawler, 2007; Rousseau, 2007; Rynes, 2011, 2012; Rynes, Giluk, & Brown, 2007; Shapiro, Kirkman, & Courtney, 2007;
Saari, 2007). There have recently been entire books devoted to the topic (e.g., Mohrman & Lawler, 2011), and there have also been
a number of authors who have raise the same issues somewhat earlier (e.g., Barley, Meyer, & Gash, 1988; Beyer & Trice, 1982; Boehm,
1980).
These suggested that the scholarship–practice gap was caused by such factors as topics scholars chose for research, the way
journal articles are written, the inability of scholars to translate their work into practical terms, the rewards for writing
practice-oriented papers, the failure of academicians to understand the real needs of practitioners, and the scarcity of situations
where scholars and managers actually collaborate. Others have argued that, until management and HR management can develop
as true disciplines, it will be difficult for research in those areas to have influence on anyone other than scholars in the field
(e.g., Pfeffer, 1993). In this regard, it is interesting to note that management is not a true profession in the same way as medicine
or law is, and so HR scholars and HR managers do not typically come out of the same academic backgrounds, as is the case in
medicine and law. Practicing managers typically come from MBA programs, or some other type of specialized, professional
Master's program, and are not required to be exposed to the “science” of HR, as doctors and lawyers are.
We cannot do justice to all of the papers, books, and chapters devoted to this gap in the present paper, but we agree that many
of these proposed causes have played a role in moving HR research away from practice. We also agree that this gap can be
narrowed if we follow the various recommendations put forth by these authors. But we also argue that, perhaps we should not be
surprised that research and practice in HR have diverged, given the impact the two reports from 1959 have had (see also Porter &
McKibbin, 1988 for an update on that impact). The struggle by Business School faculty to be taken as serious academicians has led
to reward systems that incent faculty to write papers based on strong theory rather than papers aimed at solving the problems
faced by HR managers (Hambrick, 2007, is especially critical of this trend). Agarwal and Hoetker (2007) actually refer to the
“Faustian Bargain” between business schools and the basic disciplines which has resulted in more credibility for business schools
but less relevant of those schools for the practice of management. Therefore, from a strictly historical perspective, one might well
predict exactly the kind of gap between research and practice that we see today.
Fig. 1 presents a model of these sets of forces operating on business school scholars. We include both more macro-level forces,
such as the need of Business Schools to gain legitimacy, and more micro-level forces, such as the requirements for tenure,
scholar's choices of topics to study and communication problems. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list, but the left side of
Fig. 1 illustrates some of the reasons suggested for the research-practice gap, that are relevant to researchers. Most of these forces
can be traced back to the two 1959 reports, which can be seen as the real beginning of the divide.
But, as we shall discuss below, there are exceptions to the general rule of a gap between research and practice, and these bear
scrutiny because they may suggest some ways of bridging the gap, but before addressing those instances, we must first turn to the
other half of Fig. 1. There we propose some different potential causes for the gap between research and practice — ones that stems
from the practicing managers' perspective.
5. Institutional theory, bandwagons and adopting new ideas
Many of the suggestions for bridging the gap between HR research and practice, reviewed above, focus on how to make the
information coming out of research more useful and accessible to managers. While, these suggestions clearly make sense, they
stop at the point of getting practicing managers to read the research. The assumption is that, if scholars studied the right issues,
and if managers really understood what scholars had to offer, surely managers would adopt those “best practices” that follow
from the research. Rousseau (2007) goes a bit further and suggests that scholars also need to explain how research findings can be
translated into practice (i.e., scholars need to provide procedural knowledge). But, we also believe that there are other forces
operating which might make it less likely that HR managers will adopt research findings regardless of nature of the research
question or the quality of the writing, and these are summarized in the right hand portion of Fig. 1.
A major tenet of Institutional Theory (e.g., DiMaggio & Powell, 1983) is that we don't observe more diversity in organizational
form because there are pressures upon firms to “look” similar to each other. They argue that firms seek legitimacy and that, one
way to establish legitimacy is by adopting policies and procedures that have been adopted by other “legitimate” firms. Thus, when
firms face uncertainty they model themselves on other firms through a process referred to “mimetic isomorphism” (DiMaggio &
Powell, 1983; p. 151). This could help explain why corporate managers may be more interested in “benchmarking” best practices,
than in evidence-based management. These managers and their corporate leaders are concerned with demonstrating legitimacy,
and that means copying what other legitimate firms do rather than what the research suggests is best. This is also the kind of
reasoning process that, according to Abrahamson (1991, 1996), explains managerial fads and fashions, and why innovation is
often stifled.
This notion of management fashion and bandwagon effects may well be important for understanding the growing divergence
between research and practice in HR. Abrahamson and his colleagues (Abrahamson, 1991, 1996; Abrahamson & Eisenman, 2001)
argue that academicians should strive to understand managerial fads and bandwagons, because, he argues, this is the way to
influence management practice. But, if academicians do not understand how to influence fashions, they will fall behind (even
further than they already have) other types of thought leaders in terms of influencing practice. He concludes with suggestions for
ways in which academicians might be able to influence management fashions, and we will draw upon some of these later in the
paper.
An interesting illustration of how this process works was by a study conducted by Staw and Epstein (2000). These authors
examined data from 100 of the largest companies in the U.S. In each case, they consulted various public sources to determine if
the firm had implemented total quality management (TQM), teams, or empowerment, and then related implementation to
corporate reputation, several measures of firm performance, and CEO compensation. They found no effects for any of these
Traditionally,
There was NO Gap
BUT
There are Forces Operating There are Forces Operating

on Scholars on HR Managers
Macro-Level Micro-Level Macro-Level

Forces: Forces: Forces:
Business Tenure Firms seek

legitimacy in Micro-Level
Schools striving Requirements
for legitimacy the Forces:
in University Scholars study marketplace
the “wrong Legal concerns
Business issues with some
Schools bring in practices
social sciences Scholars do not
understand the Implementation
needs of practice takes time
Ideas for Implementation

practice not costs money
presented clearly
enough Unclear
implications for
the bottom line
Fig. 1. A model to help understand the gap between research and practice.
programs on any of the measures of firm performance they examined, including measures of changes over time. They did find
relationships between implementation of these programs and corporate reputation, but found that there were effects on
reputation when a firm was simply linked with these techniques, that were over and above the effect of actually implementing
the techniques. Finally they found strong relationships between these techniques and CEO pay. Implementing these programs did
not affect CEO pay in the long run (the authors argued this was because long-run pay often depends upon firm performance), but
even the mere mention of these techniques was related to an increase in CEO pay — even if the program was never implemented.
These results were interpreted to mean that Board of Directors rewarded CEO's for planning (even if not actually implementing)
popular management techniques.
The results of the Staw and Epstein (2000) study support the logic of bandwagon effects (Abrahamson, 1991, 1996) and the
logic of Institutional Theory (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). All would seem to suggest that firms will adopt new HR (and other)
practices when they become “fashionable”, legitimate, and popular enough for Board members to believe they are effective. The
fact that none of these techniques was found to be effective in the Staw and Epstein (2000) study did not seem to matter — boards
still rewarded the CEOs for implementing them. Furthermore, in the case of Total Quality Management (TQM), it should be noted
that more than one third of the firms, involved in the study had (at least) reported implementing TQM programs. This, despite the
fact that both scholars (e.g., Dean & Bowen, 1994) and authors in the popular press (e.g., Port, 1992) have raised questions about
the universal effectiveness of such programs. Interestingly, Staw & Epstein (2000) suggest that, if academicians cannot set the
fashions, then, at least one way for academicians to influence management fashions and bandwagons is to simply raise questions
about the effectiveness of the techniques that become popular. Yet their own results suggest that the search for legitimacy may
well overcome any research questioning popular techniques, even if they appear in the popular press (e.g., Port, 1992).
6. Other factors inﬂuencing adoption
The search for legitimacy is almost certainly one of the reasons why HR managers may be reluctant to implement research
findings, independent of the quality of the research itself, but there may also be some other forces that operate at a more
micro-level. Put simply, we believe that the decision to adopt research findings in practice are also subject to the constraints, of
time, money, the law, the financial bottom line, and the decision-makers style. These, then, are factors that might discourage HR
managers from adopting ideas for research, even if the research deals with a relevant topic and is presented clearly. Furthermore,
as we shall discuss, even if they find an idea that is attractive to them, HR managers are rarely the ultimate decision-makers in
organizations.
6.1. Time
Selling a new program to top management and then implementing that program takes time, and time is a very scarce
commodity for most HR managers. A recent survey by ADP (No Author, 2010) indicated that HR managers spent as little as 14% of
their time administering the human resource function. The other 86% was from various areas such as employment and benefits
packages, while, as little as 7% of the HR managers time was spent on training and development. Given such a situation, where
would the HR manager find time to sell a new program — never mind implement it? Therefore, HR managers would have to be
very sure about a potential new program before they would be willing to invest time and effort into seeing it implemented, and so
most potential contributions from the academic literature are likely to be ignored, regardless of their possible merits. Perhaps this
situation would change if HR managers became true strategic partners.
6.2. Money
In addition to taking time, many potential contributions to HR practice would be expensive to implement. Proposals such as
developing more structured interview formats and training interviewers (cf., Huffcutt & Culbertson, 2011) cost time and money.
It is also costly to carry out a model predictive validity study to ensure that selection tests are job related (see discussion in
Schmitt & Ruchi, 2011; also see American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National
Council on Measurement in Education, 2009), even though there is a substantial body of research to support their effectiveness.
As a result, firms are not likely to divert resources away from other activities to support these proposals, unless there is sufficient
reason to do so. As noted above, sufficient reason may require the practices to be adopted by already legitimate firms.
6.3. The law
Concerns over legal entanglements are another important factor limiting the potential adoption of HR practices from the
academic literature. HR managers learn something about employment law, but top management typically relies upon corporate
lawyers for legal advice rather than on the HR manager. One of the more striking findings reported by Rynes et al. (2002)
regarded the use of intelligence tests in selection. Despite the mass of data suggesting that general mental ability was the best
predictor of success on almost any job (e.g., Schmidt & Hunter, 1998, 2003), most managers (including HR managers) are also
aware of the fact that, in the U.S., there is ample evidence of adverse impact when most intelligence tests are used (an excellent
review of these arguments is presented in Murphy, Cronin, & Tam, 2003). Thus, most corporate lawyers are unwilling to risk
potential lawsuits when they know that there is the possibility of adverse impact. These lawyers are probably unaware of the
evidence in support of the use of such tests in selection, and might not believe that adopting such test was worth the risk, even if
they knew about the research. Interestingly, the way in which these options are typically framed – opportunity for improvement
in productivity versus risk in the possibility of adverse legal action – strongly favors the adoption of the legal perspective over the
HR perspective by top level decision-makers (Kahneman & Snell, 1990; Tversky & Kahneman, 1981). In the end, though, this is
another explanation of why convincing HR managers would probably not be enough to persuade top management.
6.4. The bottom line
Organizational decision-makers also require clear evidence that a new intervention by human resource management will benefit
the organization and the executive. Top management executives are not likely to be persuaded to adopt a practice simply because
some academic research suggests it is somehow “better” — they need to see how it will impact the bottom line (and, perhaps, their
pay). It is often easier to show how selection systems impact the bottom line and therefore there is more willingness by top managers
to adopt new selection techniques — except when they also fear legal repercussions. We will discuss some proposals from academia
that have been adopted, later in the paper, but many of these are directly linked to productivity and/or firm performance.
6.5. Decision-making style
The decision-making style of the senior management may also affect the likelihood that new HR suggestions are adopted for
practice. For example, Brousseau, Driver, Hourihan, and Larsson (2006), found that the highest compensated CEOs adopted a flexible
style of decision-making which included quick decision with an integrative thinking style which means to look at all information
available to them for making that quick decision. Such a style would further reinforce the reluctance of top management to simply
adopt new ideas without careful consideration of how adoption might impact the success of the organization, their own success in
their profession, and the likelihood that they could be successful in this adoption. The findings indicate that senior executives are
more likely to be careful in making their decisions to new initiatives or changes that may impact the organization.
Note that the two sets of forces do not operate completely independent of each other. The forces operating upon managers
make it even more imperative that HR scholars are able to communicate effectively to HR managers, regarding how new ideas and
programs can improve the bottom line financial strength of the organization. This will allow the HR manager to bring that case to
the senior management of the organization who are the ultimate decision makers. The absence of a clear message by either party
can easily explain why HR research is not seen as relevant and is not often adopted by organizations. Thus we believe that our
model proposes a broader set of possible reasons for the research-practice gap, and this might help us to deal with it.
There are many examples in the literature of studies that deal with topics which are of little relevance to HR managers. There is
also no shortage of papers that employ so much jargon and theory that it would be difficult for any manager to see any relevance
for his or her job. But, there have also been cases where programs of research have resonated with HR managers, and where
scholars have had impact. We discus several examples of this type of HR research with the goal of learning more about the
complex forces operating on both scholars and managers. We will then discuss examples where research has definitely lagged
behind practice, but where research may be able to contribute anyway.
7. Some who seem to have gotten it right
As we discussed earlier, for many years there was no gap between HR research and practice. Researchers focused on very
specific applied problems, and many of those researchers were employed in real for-profit firms. But, even with the forces we
have described, in operation to separate research and practice, there are still cases where proposals from the research literature
have been adopted by HR managers.
For example, in 1980 three academicians wrote a book proposing a new model of motivation (Naylor et al., 1980). The book was
written primarily for the academic audience, but several years later Pritchard and his associates developed a system of productivity
enhancement, based on this scholarly mode, which they termed ProMES (for Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System;
Pritchard, Jones, Roth, Stuebing, & Ekeberg, 1988). For over twenty years, these scholars have published academic papers about the
system (e.g., Pritchard, Harrell, DiazGranados, & Guzman, 2008; Pritchard, Jones, Roth, Stuebing, & Ekeberg, 1989), but they have also
implemented ProMES interventions in firms all around the world (see Pritchard, 1995). Thus, in the end, they have developed a line of
study that has gained considerable academic praise, and has also been adopted by HR managers and implemented in their firms (see
Pritchard, Weaver, & Ashwood, 2012, for an excellent overview of the history of ProMES).
This line of research was not carried out with practitioners (until they implemented the programs in their firms), and the
original work was not written for managers, but for academicians. Yet the program has been adopted by a number of firms. Why?
There are probably many reasons but a few stand out. Although the ideas behind ProMES are by no means simple, Pritchard and
his colleagues were able to translate these ideas into a number of simple, easy to understand principles and steps (see especially
Pritchard & Ashwood, 2008). Furthermore, all the evidence relating to ProMES indicated that it worked as advertised. As Rynes
(2012) notes, academicians often disagree among themselves about which ideas work and which do not. But there were no
dissenting views regarding ProMES. Finally, Pritchard himself was dedicated to applying these ideas to practice. He therefore
spent a great deal of time and effort convincing managers that they should try ProMES. Also, as Pritchard himself describes in one
of his books (Pritchard, 1995), he developed many of these ideas while working on a contract for the U.S. Air Force, and he was
able to implement his ideas and test them in the Air Force, which immediately lent legitimacy to his program.
Another example of scholarly research that has had an impact on practice is the area now broadly known as Strategic Human
Resource Management. This line of research began with studies illustrating how firms adopting certain HR policies (primarily in
the area of compensation) exhibited higher levels of firm performance (e.g., Gerhart & Milkovich, 1990) but, although interesting,
this research did not capture the imaginations of HR managers or other executives. Several years later, Huselid (1995) published
his seminal paper establishing a relationship between so-called High Performance Work Systems (HPWS) and several measures
of firm performance, significantly advancing research that had been referred to as “utility analysis” (e.g., Cascio, 2000). This paper
was widely cited by scholars (more than 4000 citations according to Google Scholar) and began to influence HR research all over
the world. These ideas were also adopted by practitioners in professional organizations such as the Society for Human Resource
Management (SHRM), where the authors conducted numerous workshops. But Huselid and his colleagues went further yet and
began writing a series of more popular management books on the topic (e.g., Becker, Huselid, & Beatty, 2009), with endorsements
from several top international firms. By this point, SHRM programs (such as the HR scorecard; Becker, Huselid, & Ulrich, 2001) are
much more likely to be adopted by organizations because top management personnel have become familiar with it. In fact, Becker
et al. (2001) is one of the only two dozen books, authored by individuals with academic affiliations, that made the Business Week
best seller list, and was listed as an “influential” book by mangers (see, Benson, 2011, for details). The fact that the ideas are also
effective (but, recall the results from Staw & Epstein, 2000) make them even more likely to be adopted.
There are many other examples of HR research that has influenced practice (see, for example, various authors in the edited
book, Mohrman & Lawler, 2011), but the two discussed here share some characteristics that might help to understand how to
better bridge the gap between research and practice. First, both sets of work deal with interventions designed to improve firm
performance or productivity. Therefore, both contained practical implications for managers (eventually providing checklists and
steps to follow), and both dealt with the bottom line that manger are concerned with. In addition, as noted, there was actually
scientific evidence that both approaches worked. But, finally, both sets of authors also spoke directly to managers and moved to
writing more popular books which were accessible to managers.
This journey, from academic articles to popular management books may hold the key to another way to narrow the
research-practice gap. Not many academics can translate their research findings into practical terms, but the few that really have
impact upon form HR practices, may be the ones who can not only write in practice-oriented journals, but can also take their work
to a higher level of practical application and actually write popular books about it. Some examples include individuals such as
Elaine Pulakos, who always worked as a consultant, but who based her work on her research which was published in the top
academic journals, and who eventually translated those research findings into practical terms (cf., Pulakos, 2009). Of course,
successful management consultants have always been good at this kind of activity, but we cannot always be sure that their
recommendations are based on rigorous tests, as we can in the case of Pulakos. Wayne Cascio is an academician, but one who has
long been concerned with practical issues which he could explain in terms relevant to managers, such as his work on the effects of
employee layoffs (e.g., Cascio, 2002; Cascio & Wynn, 2004). In addition, scholars such as Ed Lawler and his colleagues at The
Center for Effective Organizations (e.g., Mohrman & Lawler, 2011) have always tied strong research to very practical issues, while
Denise Rousseau has long called for “evidence-based management” (e.g., Rousseau & Boudreau, 2011) and thought leaders such
Jeff Pfefffer and Bob Sutton are very good at explaining research findings in practical terms (e.g., Pfeffer & Sutton, 2000).
Thus, despite the real concerns that the gap between HR research and practice is growing, there have always been, and there
continue to be individuals who can bridge the gap effectively, and combine rigor and relevance into their research. The scholars
we have mentioned often spent the early portions of their careers pursuing academic legitimacy and pursuing the goals that are
valued by Business Schools. Later, they took their academic research and “translated” it for practice. But they also recognized the
need for organizational legitimacy and the need for managers to be able to justify any programs they implement in terms of the
bottom line. Thus, in addition to conducting the requisite scholarly research they also carried out studies where the outcomes
were real changes in profitability or productivity. Finally, they published their work in the popular press where managers cold
readily see what they had done and so could justify their willingness to adopt their suggestions. Of course, over time, these
individuals were the beneficiaries of a virtuous cycle where the adoption of their work actually became a source of legitimacy.
8. Some others who might be getting it right
It has been reported that roughly 20% of the Fortune 500 companies use some form of Forced Distribution Rating Scale (FDRS)
for their performance appraisal and performance management systems (Sears & McDermott, 2003). This type of scale is an
outgrowth of paired comparisons, and is based on the premise that simple ranking can be useful for making relative decisions
about employees. It is not clear who is responsible for actually proposing that a set number of ratees be assigned to each rating
category, but textbooks, as early as the 1950s included this as a type of rating scale (cf. Blum & Naylor, 1956). In any event, this
type of rating was given little more than passing mention in most scholarly treatments of appraisal systems. As a result, there was
never real reason to conduct research on these scales, until they became much more popular when they were advocated by Jack
Welch at General Electric (as discussed later by Welch, 2001). Since its introduction at GE, this approach to performance appraisal
and performance management has been adopted by many other companies. But there have been many critics of this approach in
the professional literature, and even several lawsuits associated with its use (see reviews by Schleicher, Bull, & Green, 2009;
Scullen, Bergey, & Aiman-Smith, 2005). As a result, we have here a case where many companies use a technique, presumably
because it is used by a “legitimate” company who many firms benchmark against, which has been criticized by some in the
profession, but where there has been virtually no empirical research by scholars. This may be a case where research can have a
real impact on practice, if scholars finally decide to study this topic.
Fortunately, a few years ago, Scullen et al. (2005) conducted (we believe) the first scholarly study of forced distribution ratings.
The authors cited the various arguments for and against the use of these scales, and then proceeded to report on a study involving a
computer simulation of the effects of using FDRS with different distributions of ratees, to see how it would affect the average level of
performance in a firm. The authors went to great pains to describe the assumptions made and how they were simulated in order to
justify their methodology. They reported that, although FDRS could produce an increase in the average level of performance in an
organization in the first few years, this effect dissipated over time, and were due primarily to the percentage of poor employees who
were fired.
More recently, Schleicher et al. (2009), conducted a study dealing with rater reaction to FDRS. The results of two laboratory
experiments (one involving real managers) indicated that raters felt that ratings, using FDRS, were more difficult to make and were
less fair, when ratings were to be used for administrative purposes and when there was less variability in actual performance. These
perceptions led to raters feeling less confident in their ratings and their ability to provide meaningful feedback going forward.
Following the publication of the Scullen et al. (2005) article, several popular management authors (e.g., Grote, 2005; No
Author [Industrial Engineer], 2005) cited this study as part of the reason for suggesting that FDRS might be harmful in the long run
and scholars writing in the popular press (e.g., Pfeffer & Sutton, 2000) have argued that the use of FDRS can present negative
incentives for cooperation and teamwork. Thus, here is a case where a popular management technique has been widely adopted,
at least in part because of its adoption by a visible and legitimate company (although we assume that firms adopting such a
system also have some belief that it woks), but where there has been popular management press criticism and, more recently,
research results that call the usefulness of the technique into question. This may represent an area where scholars have
recognized a management fashion, have decided to study it and weigh in on its usefulness, and may have some impact on future
practice. It will be interesting to see how the discussion about FDRS develops in the future.
9. The future: new directions for research
We have argued that, while HR scholars deserve a great deal of the blame for the research-practice gap, they are not the only
ones responsible for it. In fact, there are many pressures operating upon HR managers that may make it difficult for research to
influence practice, even when the research deals with an important topic and is clearly communicated. Nonetheless, it is easier to
recommend steps to be taken by scholars to bridge the gap. In fact, as noted by Shapiro et al. (2007), much of the potential
wisdom of management research is lost before translation, because scholars study topics of interest only to other scholars.
Therefore, we propose some broad suggestions for future research that might be more relevant to HR managers.
The role of the HR manager within the modern organization has changed a great deal, and it continues to evolve (cf., Ferris,
Hochwater, Buckley, Harrell-Cook, & Frink, 1999). As a result, it is difficult to predict exactly what will be the needs of HR
managers over the coming years. Nonetheless, some things seem to be true. Perhaps primary among them is the fact that
organizations, facing increasing global competition, are continuously seeking new source of competitive advantage and many
such sources can be found in more effective management of people. Thus, we see that the Society of Human Resource
Management (SHRM, Future Insights, 2011) has suggested twelve major areas within HR that will be increasingly important
during the coming years. These include some traditional (and continuing) needs such as staffing, labor relations, and
compensation, but they also include corporate social responsibility and sustainability, ethics, global HR, and workplace diversity.
It is interesting to note that, several years ago, Ulrich (2005) reported similar needs from his survey of thought leaders in the field.
Specifically, he cited International HRM, selection, training and development, compensation, performance appraisals, and
diversity, as the key areas where we needed to develop best practices in HRM. Therefore, it seems safe to assume that some of
these are the areas that will require additional research in the future.
9.1. International HR
It is clear that, as competition becomes global, and as multinational corporations (MNCs) become more important, there will be an
increasing need for research dealing with international HR topics. Traditionally, this has translated into a focus on managing
expatriate assignments and, although international HR must go beyond this (and is doing so), there is still a great deal we do not know
about determinants of expatriate success. Interestingly, the first thing we don't know is how to define expatriate success. For many
years, the measure of success was simply whether or not the expatriate completed his (or occasionally, her) assignment (see critique
in Black, Mendenhall, & Oddou, 1991). But it became clear that this was an inadequate measure both, because coming home early was
not equated with failure and also because lasting the entire assignment could not be equated with any real measure of effectiveness.
But, more recent research (e.g., Farh, Bartol, Shapiro, & Shin, 2010) has begun examining the role of knowledge transfer in defining the
goals of an expatriate assignment and thus in defining the success of such an assignment. That is, in the new global landscape,
expatriates are often sent on an assignment not because there are no locals who can person a task, but rather to transfer information
about practices and policies to a foreign subsidiary, and to learn from that subsidiary. Thus, research focusing on better ways to
measure information transfer, as well as studies examining factors that can either enhance or hinder the transfer of information will
be quite important (for more on this topic see Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1998; or Doz, Santose, & Williamson, 2001).
In addition, several scholars have begun focusing on the host country national (HCN) rather than on the expatriate alone (e.g., Toh
& DeNisi, 2003, 2007). Host country national were seen as almost irrelevant for many years, and that view may have been somewhat
justified by the assumption that a firm sent an expatriate because there was no one locally who could perform the job. But, as
developing nations build their own workforces; this is not always the case. Furthermore, as noted above, expatriate assignments are
made for reasons other than filling a need. In fact, some have argued that, in today's world, expatriate assignments are an important
credential for managers hoping to move into top management in MNCs (e.g., Daily, Certo, & Dalton, 2000). But in any case, there is the
suggestion that HCNs play an important role as socializing agents or the expatriates, and they might even hold the key to the ultimate
success of any expatriate assignment. This is another promising direction for research that should, and probably will be pursued in the
future.
Finally, relative to expatriates, we need to better understand the entire process of dealing with the expatriate manager. That is,
we need to have more research that is strategic in focus, and which considers the decision to select a given person for an
assignment, assign the person to a specific assignment, monitor his or performance, AND repatriate them. This final step in the
process has been largely ignored by scholars, although surely not by practitioners who must deal with the returning expatriate.
There have been a few studies focusing on the problems and challenges of repatriation (e.g., Black, Gregersen, & Mendenhall,
1992; Takeuchi, Tesluk, Yun, & Lepak, 2005), but we surely need more research and, as noted, research that considers the entire
process from a strategic perspective.
Also, there has generally been a split of sorts between HR scholars who study global processes and those who do comparative
studies, examining how and why different cultures adopt different policies. In the future, it would be desirable to combine (to the
extent this is possible) these two lines of research in order to develop a richer picture of what the global HR managers really faces.
Such a development would also be consistent with the issues raised by scholars such as Almond (2011), in calling for more
research on the “sub-national level”. That is, as we learn more about the details of managing people globally, it becomes clear that
there are many regional and cultural differences within countries that will need further attention. Finally, there is the need to
develop new models and theories of global HR that are not tied to the U.S. or even western European traditions. There has been
some work on the importance of relationships at work in China known as guanxi (e.g., Farh, Tsui, Xin, & Cheng, 1998). Is this
something that is uniquely Chinese, or is it a form of management that is related to what we see in many Latin countries where
personal relationships are paramount. Clearly, research on international HR topics will be important for the foreseeable future.
9.2. Social responsibility and sustainability
This may well be one of the most important areas for HR research in the future. U.S. firms have not been as concerned with
social responsibility and sustainability as firms in other parts of the world — especially in Latin America, but this is changing. We
need to know much more about how to develop and sustain a culture of social responsibility in a firm. We need to understand
how to select, train, and reward people so that they will behave in ways that support the goals of social responsibility and
sustainability. There is almost no existing research on these topics, and so this represents an exciting new direction for HR
research. In essence, it would mean expanding the domain of criterion variables for staffing and compensation to include these
additional outcomes.
9.3. Diversity
Managing diversity in the workforce will continue to be an area where more research is needed. But the nature of that
research may be changing a bit. In the U.S., diversity research is mostly concerned with race and gender of the workforce and,
while these issues will continue to be important, diversity is becoming a more complex issue in today's world. Surely, we will
need more research on dealing with gay/lesbian/transgendered members of the workforce. These issues present special
challenges in the global environment because here are still countries where these practices are illegal and often are punishable by
death. But, even in the U.S., where these practices are usually legal, if not always tolerated well, we simply do not understand all
the issues involved in dealing with diversity at this level.
But, in addition, MNCs face diversity challenges relating to third country nationals, especially in setting such as Germany
where there are a large number of Turkish employees. Furthermore, in all cases, issues of religious diversity are becoming more
important as well. In the U.S., for example, there are many negative stereotypes about Muslims, which we will need to understand
and deal with if we want to have a truly diverse workforce. Furthermore, young Muslims face special barriers in many parts of the
world, and we simply need research that helps us understand Muslims and how they are treated.
These areas, deserving special attention, will, of course, co-exist with more tradition research dealing with rewards and
compensation practices, especially in global settings; research on managing performance in different settings; and research on
staffing across the globe. In addition, in the U.S., there has been a great deal of interest over the past ten years or so, on the role of
perceived justice in the workplace (e.g., Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001). We have learned that employees who do
not believe they are treated “fairly” may quit, file grievances, reduce their efforts, or generally disrupt the workplace. This is likely
to be true in other settings as well, but the definition of what constitutes justice and fairness may well be different. We clearly
need more research to help us understand what people in different cultures view as fair and just, so we can be sure to institute
employment practices that are perceived as fair and just.
10. The future II: closing the gap between academia and practice
We believe that these areas of research are important for both academia and practice, and that efforts in these directions will
serve both groups. We are not convinced, however, that simply by moving research efforts in these directions the gap between
research and practice will disappear. We believe that much of the research that has been conducted in the HR area has intended to
deal with practical problems, and has intended to be useful. Therefore, we believe that some more fundamental changes need to
be made before the research-practice gap can realistically be closed.
Interestingly, there are several developments already in place that may help this process. AACSB International published a report
entitled “Impact of Research” (AACSB, 2008), in which it was argued that Business Schools needed to consider the impact of faculty
research on multiple constituents. Specifically, they argued that Business schools had the most difficulty in assessing and rewarding
research which had an impact upon practice. In fact, the report actually recommended that AACSB adopt accreditation standards
that required schools to demonstrate the impact of faculty research on targeted audiences (Recommendation 1, p. 29). This
recommendation is in keeping with the recent proposed changes to the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) in the United Kingdom.
The RAE is conducted every five years and, in its 2008 form, the goal was to produce quality profiles for each submission of research
activity made by institutions, which would then be used by the four higher education funding bodies, to determine their grant for
research to the institutions which they fund. But, in 2010, the Higher Education Funding Council for England announced a new
framework for assessing research quality in the UK, that would be called the Research Excellence Framework, which would begin in
2014 (HEFCE Circular letters, 4/2010). Under this new assessment, 20% of a school's score will be dependent upon an assessment of
the impact of the research conducted by the faculty, and “impact” has been defined to mean impact outside of the academy —
encompassing impact upon economy, society, public policy, culture, and the quality of life.
Lawler (2007) commented that the (at the time) proposed new AACSB Guidelines might encourage researchers and
practitioners to collaborate on applying research findings in human resource management practices, while potentially incenting
faculty from publishing only in top tier research outlets. Clearly, anything that would encourage more practitioners to work with
academic faculty would help to make the research more practical, and at the same time, serve to educate the HR practitioner
thereby allowing them to effectively communicate to higher management. Similar recommendations have been made by
Rousseau (2007) among others, and the impending changes in guidelines, both in the U.S. and in the UK, may make this type of
cooperation more likely to occur.
These forces can form the backdrop for more “relevant” HR research, which will surely help to narrow the research-practice
gap. Also, as we noted earlier, cases where scholars have been able to influence practice often involved those scholars bringing
their research to managers both directly and indirectly through publications in more popular management outlets. Such a
strategy will also make the research more “legitimate” which will allow HR managers to adopt those findings they find useful.
This may also become an easier process if HR managers can succeed in truly becoming strategic partners as discussed by Lawler
and Mohrman (2003).
If we are to see a re-convergence of practice and research in the field of human resources, then, we will need to see change on
both sides of a strong divide. On one side, we find managers and executives searching almost desperately for solutions to pressing
problems of competitiveness and even survival of their organizations while applying methods that are minimally effective at best
and outright destructive at worst. While the most enlightened executives and human resources professionals believe that an
empowered employee will result in a net improvement in their firms' performance, nearly all of their management systems seem
to suggest otherwise. On the other side of the divide, the world of scholars too often serves up studies of practically insignificant
issues. Too often, in the “best journals,” strong theory has replaced practical significance as the major determinant of what gets
published (cf., Hambrick, 2007) which limits the usefulness of this research.
If we look at the reality of today, we find a world of executives crying out for practices that work, but what are the scholars
offering to them? In order to be truly helpful, HR scholars need to address the complexities of organizational performance.
Organizations today face problems that would have been unimaginable as little as a generation ago. Instead of primarily
converting physical inputs into physical outputs, organizations today focus on solving complex problems and providing value to a
complex, global society. Problems such as a continuously growing population, aging population in nearly all advanced economies
of the world, rapid and possibly irreversible deterioration of the environment, and an ever widening divide between the wealthy
and increasing numbers of poor and disadvantaged – even in the United States – places challenges upon organizations and their
members. It is within this context that scholars must be able to offer real solutions to real problems.
But HR Professionals must also adapt and change as well. Oftentimes, HR managers are more concerned with their legitimacy
and status than with implementing real solutions to real problems. They must be more willing to learn about real research results
and learn the difference between baseless claims and real science. They must look beyond the quick fix and seek to learn what
really works in the long run.
This must be the point of re-convergence. All parties must get serious about dealing with the myriad of problems facing
modern organizations. Scholars must get serious about research that has practical relevance as an important determinant of
validity. But they must not do this by abandoning rigor in favor of sloppy work that has “sex appeal.” Quite the contrary — it is
only through the rigor of our work that ineffective but popular fads can be replaced by practices that actually produce results. HR
managers and practitioners must also search more deeply for answers and not be persuaded by the lure of easy answers, even
when they come packaged in elaborate wrapping. This was the message conveyed in books such as The Witch Doctors
(Mickelthwait & Wooldridge, 1996). Those authors warned about management gurus who claimed to have answers to complex
questions, but only if one followed the guru's advice. A reasonable question, then, is if managers paid more attention to rigorous
research than to quick fixes, would scholars be motivated to do more relevant research?
11. Conclusions
HR is an applied field so it not surprising that, traditionally, there has been a clear link between HR research and HR practice.
But, as noted by many before us, this link is not as clear as it once was and there seems to be a real gap between research and
practice in HR. Many of the other authors have tended toward blaming the academicians, and have suggested that closer
cooperation between scholars and managers is the key to bridging the gap. We agree that this would help, but we have also
argued that the problem on the academician side may be more related to institutions than has been acknowledged. But, we have
also argued that HR managers, who must help higher levels of management to gain legitimacy, also deserve part of the blame.
Although closer cooperation between the two sides will help, research that can be translated into popular books may be much
more influential than articles in any journals — even those aimed at practitioners. Hopefully, this discussion may help both sides
of the divide understand the other side's priorities and preferences, and will enable closer cooperation and therefore, closer links
between HR research and practice.
References
AACSB International (2008). Final report of the AACSB international impact of research task force. Tampa, FL: AACSB International.
Abrahamson, E. (1991). Management fads and fashions: The diffusion and rejection of innovations. Academy of Management Review, 16, 586–612.
Abrahamson, E. (1996). Management fashion. Academy of Management Review, 21, 254–285.
Abrahamson, E., & Eisenman, M. (2001). Why management scholars must intervene strategically in the management knowledge market. Human Relations, 54,
67–75.
Agarwal, R., & Hoetker, G. (2007). A Faustian bargain? The growth of management and its relationship with other disciplines. Academy of Management Journal, 50,
1304–1322.
Almond, P. (2011). The sub-national embeddedness of international HRM. Human Relations, 64, 535–551.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education (1999). Standards for
educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Arvey, R. D., & Faley, R. H. (1988). Fairness in selecting employees (2nd ed.). Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.
Barley, S. R., Meyer, G. W., & Gash, D. C. (1988). Cultures of culture: Academics, practitioners, and the pragmatics of normative control. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 33, 24–60.
Bartlett, C., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Managers across borders: The transnational solution. Boston, MA: Harvard Business school Press.
Becker, B. E., Huselid, M. A., & Beatty, R. W. (2009). The differentiated workforce: Transforming talent into strategic impact. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Becker, B. E., Huselid, M. A., & Ulrich, D. (2001). The HR scorecard: Linking people, strategy, and performance. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Bennis, W., & O'Toole, J. (2005). How business schools lost their way. Harvard Business Review, 83(5), 96–123.
Benson, G. S. (2011). Popular and influential management books. In S. A. Mohrman, & E. E. Lawler (Eds.), Useful research: Advancing theory and practice (pp. 289–308).
San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Beyer, J. M., & Trice, H. M. (1982). The utilization process: A conceptual framework and synthesis of empirical findings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27,
591–622.
Black, J. S., Gregersen, H. B., & Mendenhall, M. E. (1992). Toward a theoretical framework of repatriation adjustment. Journal of International Business Studies, 23,
737–760.
Black, J. S., Mendenhall, M. E., & Oddou, G. (1991). Toward a comprehensive model of international adjustment: An integration of multiple theoretical
perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 16, 291–317.
Blanz, F., & Ghiselli, E. E. (1972). The mixed standard scale: A new rating system. Personnel Psychology, 25, 185–199.
Blum, M. L., & Naylor, J. C. (1956). Industrial psychology: Its theoretical and social foundations. New York: Harper and Row.
Boehm, V. R. (1980). Research in the “real world” — A conceptual model. Personnel Psychology, 33, 495–504.
Bolster, B. I., & Springbett, B. M. (1961). The reaction of interviewers to favorable and unfavorable information. Journal of Applied Psychology, 45, 95–103.
Brousseau, K. R., Driver, M. J., Hourihan, G., & Larsson, R. (2006). The seasoned executive's decision making style. Harvard Business Review, 84, 110–120.
Campbell, J. C., & Dunnette, M. D. (1968). Effectiveness of T-group experiences in training and development. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 73–104.
Cascio, W. F. (2000). Costing human resources: The financial impact of behavior in organizations (4th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.
Cascio, W. F. (2002). Responsible restructuring: Creative and profitable alternatives to layoffs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cascio, W. F. (2007). Evidence-based management and the marketplace for ideas. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1009–1012.
Cascio, W. F., & Aquinis, H. (2008). Research in industrial and organizational psychology 1963–2007: Changes, choices, and trends. Journal of Applied Psychology,
93, 1062–1081.
Cascio, W. F., & Wynn, P. (2004). Managing a downsizing process. Human Resource Management, 43, 425–436.
Cohen, D. J. (2007). The very separate worlds of academic and practitioner publications in human resource management: Reasons for the divide and concrete
solutions for bridging the gap. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1013–1019.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational
justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425–445.
Colquitt, J. A., & Zapata-Phela, C. P. (2007). Trends in theory building and theory testing: A five decade study of the academy of management journal. Academy of
Management Journal, 50, 1281–1303.
Daily, C., Certo, T., & Dalton, D. (2000). International experience in the executive suite: The path to prosperity? Strategic Management Journal, 21, 515–523.
Daniels, H. W., & Otis, J. L. (1950). A method for analyzing employment interview. Personnel Psychology, 3, 425–444.
Deadrick, D. L., & Gibson, P. A. (2007). An examination of the research-practice gap in HR: Comparing topics of interest to HR academics and HR professionals.
Human Resource Management Review, 17, 131–139.
Dean, J. W., & Bowen, D. E. (1994). Management theory and total quality: Improving research and practice through theory development. Academy of Management
Review, 19, 392–418.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological
Review, 35, 147–160.
Doz, Y., Santose, J., & Williamson, P. (2001). From global to multinational: How companies win in the knowledge economy. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Farh, C. I. C., Bartol, K. M., Shapiro, D. L., & Shin, J. (2010). Networking abroad: A process model of how expatriates form support ties to facilitate adjustment.
Academy of Management Review, 35, 434–454.
Farh, J. L., Tsui, A. S., Xin, K. R., & Cheng, B. (1998). The influence of relational demography and guanxi: The Chinese case. Organization Science, 9, 471–488.
Ferris, G. R., Hochwater, W. A., Buckley, R. M., Harrell-Cook, G., & Frink, D. W. (1999). Human resource management: Some new directions. Journal of Management,
25, 385–415.
Gael, S., & Grant, D. L. (1972). Employment test validation for minority and nonminority telephone company service representatives. Journal of Applied Psychology,
56, 135–139.
Gerhart, B., & Milkovich, G. T. (1990). Organizational differences in managerial compensation and financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 33,
663–691.
Gordon, R. A., & Howell, J. E. (1959). Higher education for business. New York: Columbia University Press.
Grote, D. (2005). Forced ranking: Making performance management work. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Guest, D. E. (2007). Don't shoot the messenger: A wake-up call for academics. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1020–1026.
Guion, R. M. (1965). Personnel testing. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hambrick, D. C. (2007). The field of management's devotion to theory: Too much of a good thing? Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1346–1352.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The motivation to work. New York: Wiley.
Higher Education Funding Council for England (2010). Circular letter 4/2010. http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/circlets/2010/cl04_10/
Huffcutt, A. I., & Culbertson, S. S. (2011). Interviews. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology Vol. 2 (pp. 185–203). Washington, D.C.:
American Psychological Association.
Hulin, C. L. (1968). Effects of changes in job satisfaction levels on employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 52, 122–126.
Hulin, C. L. (2001). Applied psychology and science: Differences between research and practice. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50, 225–234.
Humphreys, L. G. (1973). Statistical definitions of test validity for minority groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 58, 1–4.
Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of
Kahneman, D., & Snell, J. (1990). Predicting utility. In R. Hogarth (Ed.), Insights in decision making (pp. 295–310). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Kay, E., Meyer, H. H., & French, J. R. P. (1965). Effects of threat in a performance appraisal interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 311–317.
Latham, G. P. (2007). A speculative perspective on the transfer of behavioral science findings to the workplace: “The times they are a-changin”. Academy of
Lawler, E. E. (2007). Why HR practices are not evidence-based. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1033–1036.
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.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297–1350).
Chicago: Rand McNally.
Mayfield, E. C., & Carlson, R. E. (1966). Selection interview decisions: First results of a long-term research project. Personnel Psychology, 33, 725–739.
Mayo, E. (1933). The human problems of an industrial civilization. New York: MacMillan.
McCormick, E. J., Jeanneret, P. R., & Mecham, R. C. (1972). A study of job characteristics and job dimensions as based on the Position Analysis Questionnaire (PAQ).
Journal of Applied Psychology, 56, 347–368.
Mickelthwait, J., & Wooldridge, A. (1996). The witch doctors. New York: Crown Business.
Mohrman, S. A., & Lawler, E. E. (2011). Useful research: Advancing theory and practice. San Francisco, CA: Berrett and Koehler.
Moore, C. L., MacNaughton, J. F., & Osburn, H. G. (1969). Ethnic differences within an industrial selection battery. Personnel Psychology, 22, 473–482.
Moses, J. L., & Ritchie, R. J. (1976). Supervisory relationships training: A behavioral evaluation of a behavioral modeling program. Personnel Psychology, 29, 337–343.
Munsterberg, H. (1913). Psychology and industrial efficiency. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Murphy, K. R., Cronin, B. E., & Tam, A. P. (2003). Controversy and consensus regarding the use of cognitive ability testing in organizations. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88, 660–671.
Naylor, J. C., Pritchard, R. D., & Ilgen, D. R. (1980). A theory of behavior in organizations. New York: Academic Press.
No Author (2005, April). “Rank and yank” benefit work force: Forced distribution ranking of employees works, at least for a while. Industrial Engineer, 1, 17–18.
No Author (2010). Survey finds administrative work diverts HR managers from strategic management. ADP Advisor, 20 (2). (pp. 1–4). Rosland, NJ: ADP employee Services.
Pearlman, K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1980). Validity generalization results for tests used to predict job proficiency and training success. Journal of Applied
Pfeffer, J. (1993). Barriers to the advance of organizational science: Paradigm development as a dependent variable. Academy of Management Review, 18, 599–620.
Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2000). The knowing–doing gap: How smart companies turn knowledge into action. Boston: Harvard business school Press.
Pierson, Frank C. (1959). The education of American businessmen: A study of university-college programs in business administration. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Port, O. (1992, November 20). Quality. Business week, 66–72.
Porter, L. W., & McKibbin, L. E. (1998). Management education: Drift or thrust into the 21st century. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Pritchard, R. D. (1995). Productivity measurement and improvement: Organizational case studies. Westport CT: Praeger Publishers.
Pritchard, R. D., & Ashwood, E. L. (2008). Managing motivation. London, UK: Routledge.
Pritchard, R. D., Dunnette, M. D., & Jurgenson, D. O. (1972). Effects of perceptions of equity and inequity on worker performance and satisfaction. Journal of Applied
Pritchard, R. D., Harrell, M. M., DiazGranados, D., & Guzman, M. J. (2008). The productivity measurement and enhancement system: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 93, 540–567.
Pritchard, R. D., Jones, S. D., Roth, P. L., Stuebing, K. K., & Ekeberg, S. E. (1988). Effects of group feedback, goal setting, and incentives on organizational productivity.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 337–358.
Pritchard, R. D., Jones, S. D., Roth, P. L., Stuebing, K. K., & Ekeberg, S. E. (1989). The evaluation of an integrated approach to measuring organizational productivity.
Personnel Psychology, 42, 69–115.
Pritchard, R. D., Weaver, S. J., & Ashwood, E. L. (2012). Evidence-based productivity improvement: A practical guide to the productivity and enhancement system
(ProMES). New York: Routledge Academic.
Pulakos, E. D. (2009). Performance management: A new approach for driving business results. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Roethlisberger, F. J. (1934). Management and the worker: Technical vs. social organization in an industrial plant. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. J. (1943). Management and the worker: An account of a research program conducted by the western electric company, Hawthorne
works, Chicago. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rousseau, D. M. (2006). Is there such a thing as evidence-based management? Academy of Management Review, 31, 256–269.
Rousseau, D. M. (2007). A sticky, leveraging, and scalable strategy for high-quality connections between organizational practice and science. Academy of
Rousseau, D. M., & Boudreau, J. W. (2011). Sticky findings: Research evidence practitioners find useful. In S. A. Mohrman, & E. E. Lawler (Eds.), Useful research:
Advancing theory and practice (pp. 269–288). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Rudd, H. (1921). Is the rating of human character predictable? Journal of Educational Psychology, 12, 425–438.
Rynes, S. L. (2011). Counterpoint: Now is a great time for conducting relevant research. In S. A. Mohrman, & E. E. Lawler (Eds.), Useful research: Advancing theory
and practice (pp. 351–368). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Rynes, S. (2012). The research–practice gap in industrial-organizational psychology and related fields: Challenges and potential solutions. In S. Kozlowski (Ed.),
Oxford handbook of industrial–organizational psychology (pp. 409–454). Oxford, UK: Oxford University press.
Rynes, S. L., Colbert, A. E., & Brown, K. G. (2002). HR professionals' beliefs about effective human resource practices: Correspondence between research and
practice. Human Resource Management, 41, 149–174.
Rynes, S. L., Giluk, T. L., & Brown, K. G. (2007). The very separate worlds of academic and practitioner periodicals in human resource management: Implications for
evidence-based management. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 987–1008.
Saari, L. (2007). Bridging the worlds. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1043–1045.
Schleicher, D. J., Bull, R. A., & Green, S. G. (2009). Rater reactions to forced distribution rating systems. Journal of Management, 35, 899–927.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of
research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–274.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2003). Select on intelligence. In E. A. Locke (Ed.), The Blackwell handbook of principles of organizational behavior (pp. 3–14). Oxford: Blackwell.
Schmidt, F. L., Ones, D. S., & Hunter, J. E. (1992). Personnel selection. In M. R. Rosenzweig, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Annual review of psychology (pp. 627–670). Palo
Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
Schmitt, N., & Ruchi, S. (2011). Validation support for selection procedures. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 2. (pp.
399–420). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Scott, W., Clothier, R., & Spriegel, W. (1941). Personnel management. New York: McGraw Hill.
Scullen, S. E., Bergey, P. K., & Aiman-Smith, L. (2005). Forced distribution rating systems and the improvement of workforce potential: A baseline simulation.
Personnel Psychology, 58, 1–32.
Sears, D., & McDermott, D. (2003). The rise and fall of rank and yank. Information Strategy: The Executive's Journal, 19, 6–11.
Shapiro, D. L., Kirkman, B. L., & Courtney, H. G. (2007). Perceived causes and solutions of the translation gap in management. Academy of Management Journal, 50,
249–266.
SHRM (2011). Society for human resource management, future insights, the top trends for 2012 according to SHRM's HR subject matter expert panel. Retrieved
from. http://www.shrm.org/Research/FutureWorkplaceTrends/Documents/11-0622_20Workplace_20panel_trends_symp_20v4.pdf
Smith, P. C., & Kendall, L. M. (1963). Retranslation of expectations: An approach to the construction of unambiguous anchors for rating scales. Journal of Applied
Staw, B. M., & Epstein, L. D. (2000). What bandwagons bring: Effects of popular management techniques on corporate performance, reputation, and CEO pay.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 523–556.
Strong, E. K. (1938). Strong vocational interest blank for men, revised. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Takeuchi, R., Tesluk, P. E., Yun, S., & Lepak, D. P. (2005). An integrative view of international experiences. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 85–100.
Taylor, F. W. (1911). Principles of scientific management. New York: Harper.
Taylor, E. K., & Wherry, R. J. (1951). A study of leniency in two rating systems. Personnel Psychology, 4, 39–47.
Thorndike, E. L. (1920). A constant error in psychological ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, 469–477.
Toh, S. M., & DeNisi, A. S. (2003). Host country national reactions to expatriate pay policies: A model and implications. Academy of Management Review, 28, 606–621.
Toh, S. M., & DeNisi, A. S. (2007). Host country nationals as socializing agents: A social identity approach. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 281–301.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The farming of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458.
Ulrich, D. (2005). The future of human resource management: 64 thought leaders explore the critical HR issues of today and tomorrow. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work motivation. New York: Wiley.
Welch, J. F. (2001). Jack: Straight from the gut. New York: Warner Books.
Wonderlic, E. F., & Hovland, C. I. (1939). The personnel test: A re-standardized abridgement of the Otis S.A. test for business and industrial use. Journal of Applied

2014 - HRMR - Research and Practice in HRM-a Historical Perspective

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2014 - HRMR - Research and Practice in HRM-a Historical Perspective

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Human Resource Management Review 24 (2014) 219–231

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Human Resource Management Review

Research and practice in HRM: A historical perspective

2. Some historical roots of HR practice

3. HR research and its ties to practice

4. The gap between research and practice grows

5. Institutional theory, bandwagons and adopting new ideas

There are Forces Operating There are Forces Operating

Macro-Level Micro-Level Macro-Level

Business Tenure Firms seek

Ideas for Implementation

6. Other factors inﬂuencing adoption

6.3. The law

6.4. The bottom line

6.5. Decision-making style

7. Some who seem to have gotten it right

8. Some others who might be getting it right

9. The future: new directions for research

9.2. Social responsibility and sustainability

You might also like