Thesis HR Consultants Enabling Small

HR CONSULTANTS: ENABLING SMALL BUSINESS LEADERS TO
ESTABLISH SUSTAINABLE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE
by
Kristi L. Weierbach
VINCENT DEFAZIO, DM Faculty Mentor and Chair
JOHN HANNON, PhD, Committee Member
DAVID STEIN, PhD, Committee Member
Barbara Butts Williams, PhD, Dean, School of Business and Technology
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Capella University
September 2015
ProQuest Number: 3729346
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
ProQuest 3729346
Published by ProQuest LLC (2015). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
All rights reserved.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
© Kristi Weierbach, 2015
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the degree to which an HR consultant
could influence small business leaders in formulating a human resource based strategy to
establish a sustained competitive advantage for the business. A survey instrument was
administered, through QuestionPro, to 92 small business leaders who worked in
companies with less than 500 employees and had at least one employee report to himor
her. A multiple regression was conducted to analyze the data collected from the survey.
There was a statistically, positive relationship found for all four research questions
including (1) what is the relationship between the degree of an HR consultant’s
acceptance as a trusted advisor and sustainable competitive advantage (2) what is the
relationship between an HR consultant’s knowledge of strategic management and
sustainable competitive advantage, (3) what is the relationship between HR Architecture
and sustainable competitive advantage, and (4) what is the relationship between the
degree of an HR consultant’s acceptance as a trusted advisor, an HR consultant’s
knowledge of strategic management, HR Architecture, and sustainable competitive
advantage? The study provides a value proposition to both HR consultants and small
business leaders and has narrowed the gap in the literature on the role an HR consultant
can play with helping small business leaders to align the HR architecture of a company
with a differentiation competitive strategy used to establish and sustain competitive
advantage.
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my husband, Eugene, and my daughter, Madison,
for their unconditional love and support during this four year journey.
iii
Acknowledgments
I would like to acknowledge my mentor, Dr. Vincent DeFazio, for his patience
and understanding during this journey. He helped me to persevere until the end!
iv
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………………iv
LIST OF TABLES……...………………………………………………………...………ix
LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………………...xii
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
Introduction to the Problem ............................................................................................ 1
Background of the Study ................................................................................................ 3
Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................ 7
Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................................... 7
Rationale ......................................................................................................................... 9
Research Questions ......................................................................................................... 9
Significance of the Study .............................................................................................. 10
Definition of Terms....................................................................................................... 11
HR consultant’s acceptance as trusted advisor ......................................................... 11
HR consultant’s knowledge of strategic management .............................................. 11
HR Architecture ........................................................................................................ 12
Sustainable competitive advantage ........................................................................... 12
Small Business .......................................................................................................... 12
Small Business Leader .............................................................................................. 12
Limitations and Assumptions ....................................................................................... 13
Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................. 13
Organization of the Remainder of the Study ................................................................ 17
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................... 19
v
Trusted Advisor ............................................................................................................ 19
HR Consultant as Trusted Advisor ........................................................................... 21
Knowledge of Strategic Management ........................................................................... 23
HR Competencies in Strategic Management ............................................................ 26
HR Architecture ............................................................................................................ 31
Sustainable Competitive Advantage ............................................................................. 40
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 47
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY .................................................................................... 48
Research Design............................................................................................................ 48
Population/Sample ........................................................................................................ 49
Instruments/Measures ................................................................................................... 51
Data Collection ............................................................................................................. 53
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 54
Validity and Reliability ................................................................................................. 55
Ethical Considerations .................................................................................................. 56
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS .................................................................................................. 58
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 58
Description of the Population and Sample.................................................................... 58
Population ................................................................................................................. 58
Sample size and procedures ...................................................................................... 59
Demographics ........................................................................................................... 61
Summary of Results ...................................................................................................... 62
Demographics ........................................................................................................... 64
vi
Research Question 1 ................................................................................................. 64
Details of Analysis and Results .................................................................................... 66
Demographic Analysis .............................................................................................. 72
Research Question 2 ............................................................................................... 106
Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 144
CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS ................. 146
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 146
Summary of the Results .............................................................................................. 146
Discussion of the Results ............................................................................................ 148
Implications of the Study Results ............................................................................... 153
Limitations .................................................................................................................. 154
Recommendations for Further Study .......................................................................... 154
Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 155
vii
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 156
APPENDIX A. STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL WORK ............................................... 166
APPENDIX B ................................................................................................................. 168
viii
List of Tables
Table 1 Pilot Test Reliability Statistics ............................................................................. 56
Table 2 Number of Small Businesses with Employees ...................................................... 58
Table 3 Legend of Variable Names and Survey Questions ............................................... 62
Table 4 Demographic Survey Questions........................................................................... 72
Table 5 Descriptive Statistics - Demographic Info. (IV) and Trusted Advisor (IV) ......... 73
Table 6 Correlations - Demographic Info. (IV) and Trusted Advisor (IV) ....................... 74
Table 7 Coefficients - Demographic Info. (IV) and Trusted Advisor (IV) ........................ 74
Table 8 Model Summary - Demographic Info. (IV) and Trusted Advisor (IV) ................. 75
Table 9 ANOVA - Demographic Info. (IV) and Trusted Advisor (IV) .............................. 75
Table 10 Casewise Diagnostics - Demographic Info. (IV) and Trusted Advisor (IV) ...... 76
Table 11 Residuals Statistics - Demographic Info. (IV) and Trusted Advisor (DV)......... 76
Table 12 Descriptive Statistics - Demographic Info. (IV) and Knowledge of Strategic

Management (DV)............................................................................................................. 78
Table 13 Correlations - Demographic Info. (IV) and Knowledge of Strategic

Management (DV)............................................................................................................. 79
Table 14 Coefficients - Demographic Info. (IV) and Knowledge of Strategic Management

(DV)................................................................................................................................... 79
Table 15 Model Summary - Demographic Info. (IV) and Knowledge of Strategic

Management (DV)............................................................................................................. 80
Table 16 ANOVA - Demographic Info. (IV) and Knowledge of Strategic Management

(DV)................................................................................................................................... 80
Table 17 Casewise Diagnostics - Demographic Info. (IV) and Knowledge of Strategic

Management (DV)............................................................................................................. 81
Table 18 Residuals Statistics - Demographic Info. (IV) and Knowledge of Strategic

Management (DV)............................................................................................................. 81
ix
Table 19 Descriptive Statistics - Demographic Info. (IV) and HR Architecture (DV) ..... 84
Table 20 Correlations - Demographic Info. (IV) and HR Architecture (DV) .................. 85
Table 21 Coefficients - Demographic Info. (IV) and HR Architecture (DV) .................... 85
Table 22 Model Summary - Demographic Info. (IV) and HR Architecture (DV)............. 86
Table 23 ANOVA - Demographic Info. (IV) and HR Architecture (DV) .......................... 86
Table 24 Casewise Diagnostics - Demographic Info. (IV) and HR Architecture (DV) .... 86
Table 25 Residuals Statistics - Demographic Info. (IV) and HR Architecture (DV) ........ 87
Table 26 Descriptive Statistics - Demographic Info. (IV) and Sustainable Competitive

Advantage (DV) ................................................................................................................ 90
Table 27 Correlations - Demographic Info. (IV) and Sustainable Competitive Advantage

(DV)................................................................................................................................... 90
Table 28 Coefficients - Demographic Info. (IV) and Sustainable Competitive Advantage

(DV)................................................................................................................................... 91
Table 29 Model Summary - Demographic Info. (IV) and Sustainable Competitive

Advantage (DV) ................................................................................................................ 92
Table 30 ANOVA - Demographic Info. (IV) and Sustainable Competitive Advantage (DV)
........................................................................................................................................... 92
Table 31 Casewise Diagnostics - Demographic Info. (IV) and Sustainable Competitive

Advantage (DV) ................................................................................................................ 92
Table 32 Residuals Statistics - Demographic Info. (IV) and Sustainable Competitive

Advantage (DV) ................................................................................................................ 93
Table 33 Research Question 1 - Survey Questions ........................................................... 95
Table 34 Research Question 1 Descriptive Statistics ....................................................... 96
Table 35 Research Question 1 Correlations..................................................................... 96
Table 36 Research Question 1 Coefficients ...................................................................... 97
Table 37 Research Question 1 Model Summary ............................................................... 97
x
Table 38 Research Question 1 ANOVA ............................................................................ 98
Table 39 Research Question 1 Casewise Diagnostics ...................................................... 98
Table 40 Research Question 1 Residuals Statistics .......................................................... 99
Table 41 Research Question 1 Non-parametric Test Results ......................................... 101
Table 42 Research Question 1 Secondary Model Summary ........................................... 103
Table 43 Research Question 1 Secondary ANOVA ........................................................ 103
Table 44 Research Question 1 Secondary Coefficients .................................................. 104
Table 45 Research Question 1 Secondary Casewise Diagnostics .................................. 104
Table 46 Research Question 1 Secondary Residuals Statistics ...................................... 104
Table 47 Research Question 2 Survey Questions ........................................................... 107
Table 48 Research Question 2 Descriptive Statistics ..................................................... 108
Table 49 Research Question 2 Correlations................................................................... 108
Table 50 Research Question 2 Coefficients .................................................................... 108
Table 51 Research Question 2 Model Summary ............................................................. 109
Table 52 Research Question 2 ANOVA .......................................................................... 109
Table 53 Research Question 2 Casewise Diagnostics .................................................... 110
Table 54 Research Question 2 Residuals Statistics ........................................................ 111
xi
Table 61 Research Question 3 Survey Questions ........................................................... 117
Table 62 Research Question 3 Descriptive Statistics ..................................................... 118
Table 63 Research Question 3 Correlations................................................................... 119
Table 64 Research Question 3 Coefficients .................................................................... 119
Table 65 Research Question 3 Model Summary ............................................................. 120
Table 66 Research Question 3 ANOVA .......................................................................... 120
Table 67 Research Question 3 Casewise Diagnostics .................................................... 120
Table 68 Research Question 3 Residuals Statistics ........................................................ 121
Table 75 Research Question 4 Level 1 Descriptive Statistics......................................... 129
Table 76 Research Question 4 Level 1 Correlations ...................................................... 129
Table 77 Research Question 4 Level 1 Coefficients ....................................................... 129
Table 78 Research Question 4 Level 1 Model Summary ................................................ 130
Table 79 Research Question 4 Level 1 ANOVA.............................................................. 130
Table 80 Research Question 4 Level 1 Casewise Diagnostics ....................................... 131
Table 81 Research Question 4 Level 1 Residuals Statistics ........................................... 131
Table 82 Research Question 4 Level 1 Non-parametric Test Results ............................ 133
xii
Table 83 Research Question 4 Level 2 List of Variables ................................................ 134
Table 84 Research Question 4 Level 2 Descriptive Statistics......................................... 135
Table 85 Research Question 4 Level 2 Correlations ...................................................... 135
Table 86 Research Question 4 Level 2 Coefficients ....................................................... 136
Table 87 Research Question 4 Level 2 Model Summary ................................................ 137
Table 88 Research Question 4 Level 2 ANOVA.............................................................. 137
Table 89 Research Question 4 Level 2 Casewise Diagnostics ....................................... 138
Table 90 Research Question 4 Level 2 Residuals Statistics ........................................... 138
Table 91 Research Question 4 Level 2 Secondary Model Summary .............................. 142
Table 92 Research Question 4 Level 2 Secondary ANOVA ............................................ 142
Table 93 Research Question 4 Level 2 Secondary Coefficients ..................................... 142
Table 94 Research Question 4 Level 2 Secondary Casewise Diagnostics ..................... 142
Table 95 Research Question 4 Level 2 Secondary Residuals Statistics.......................... 143
xiii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................... 14
Figure 2. G*Power Results ............................................................................................... 51
Figure 3. Role in Organization.......................................................................................... 59
Figure 4. Number of Employees ...................................................................................... 60
Figure 5. Industry ............................................................................................................. 62
Figure 6. Conceptual Framework – Demographic Info. (IV) and Trusted Advisor (DV) 73
Figure 7. Histogram Figure 8. Normal P-P Plot....................................................... 77
Figure 9. Scatterplot ......................................................................................................... 77
Figure 10. Conceptual Framework – Demographic Info. (IV) and Knowledge of
Strategic Management (DV) ............................................................................................. 78
Figure 11. Histogram Figure 12. Normal P-P Plot.................................................... 83
Figure 13. Scatterplot ....................................................................................................... 83
Figure 14. Conceptual Framework – Demographic Info. (IV) and HR Architecture (DV)
........................................................................................................................................... 84
Figure 15. Histogram Figure 16. Normal P-P Plot................................................... 88
Figure 18. Conceptual Framework – Demographic Info. (IV) and Sustainable
Competitive Advantage (DV) ........................................................................................... 89
Figure 19. Histogram Figure 20. Normal P-P Plot................................................... 94
Figure 22. Conceptual Framework - Research Question 1 .............................................. 95
Figure 23. RQ1 Histogram Figure 24. RQ1 Normal P-P Plot ............................... 101
xiv
Figure 25. Research Question 1 Scatterplot ................................................................... 101
Figure 26. RQ 1 Secondary Histogram Figure 27. RQ 1 Secondary Normal P-P Plot
......................................................................................................................................... 105
Figure 28. RQ 1 Secondary Scatterplot .......................................................................... 106
Figure 29. Conceptual Framework - Research Question 2 ............................................ 107
Figure 30. RQ 2 Histogram Figure 31. RQ 2 Normal P-P Plot............................. 112
Figure 32. RQ 2 Scatterplot ........................................................................................... 112
......................................................................................................................................... 116
Figure 35. RQ 2 Secondary Scatterplot ......................................................................... 116
Figure 36. Conceptual Framework - Research Question 3 ............................................ 117
Figure 37. RQ 3 Histogram Figure 38. RQ 3 Normal P-P Plot............................. 123
Figure 39. RQ 3 Scatterplot ........................................................................................... 123
......................................................................................................................................... 127
Figure 42. RQ 3 Secondary Scatterplot ......................................................................... 127
Figure 43. RQ 4 Level 1 Histogram Figure 44. RQ 4 Level 1 Normal P-P Plot .... 133
Figure 45. RQ 4 Level 1 Scatterplot ............................................................................. 133
Figure 46. RQ 4 Level 2 Histogram Figure 47. RQ 4 Level 2 Normal P-P Plot .... 140
Figure 48. RQ 4 Level 2 Scatterplot .............................................................................. 140
Figure 49. RQ 4 Level 2 Secondary Histogram Figure 50. RQ 4 Level 2 Secondary
Normal P-P Plot 144
Figure 51. RQ 4 Level 2 Secondary Scatterplot ............................................................ 144
xv
xvi
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Introduction to the Problem
Small to medium-sized businesses typically possess little to none of the human
resource (HR) expertise needed in-house to effectively manage the human resource
function (Cooke, et al., 2005). Scholars argued that the successful management of the
human resource related functions and practices are critical to the vitality of smaller
companies (Marlow & Patton, 1993; Hornsby & Kuratko, 2003). Ojo (2011) performed a
regression analysis on strategic human resource practices and corporate performance, and
found a positive relationship between the two. Ojo (2011) asked respondents if “strategic
human resource aids corporate financial performance and if strategic human resource
practice is positively related with corporate performance” (p.343-344). In both cases,
over 90% of respondents agreed. Based on the findings of these studies, it appears that
small business leaders could benefit from the guidance of a trusted HR advisor, who can
assist with aligning HR practices in a way that enables the small business leader to
establish sustainable competitive advantage for the business (Collins & Smith, 2006).
Small business leaders frequently wear many different hats, and usually spend a
majority of their efforts on the core activities of the organization that enable delivery of
products and services to customers (Cooke, Shen, & McBride, 2005). Few small business
leaders truly understand that the management of human capital is equally important to the
products and services of the company (Huselid, 1995). As an HR professional working
with small business leaders on a daily basis, for almost four years, it is evident that a
significant amount of leaders do not possess the knowledge or experience needed to
1
effectively manage the human resource function within their organization. Additionally,
as this study confirms, 29% of small businesses do not have a full time human resource
professional on staff.
Historically a majority of scholarly research in the field of human resources was
conducted from an organizational perspective, and not from the perspective of a service
provider or consultant (Butler, Callahan, & Smith, 2010). Innes and Wiesner (2012)
noted that the research on the bundling of HR practices in small to medium-sized
businesses is limited in comparison to the research that has been conducted on large
organizations in this area. The research conducted for this dissertation will add to the
existing body of knowledge of HR practices in small to medium-sized companies.
Additionally, this research will extend the research that has been done on the resource
based view of strategy (Wernerfelt, 1984), and establishing a sustainable competitive
advantage in small businesses (Barney, 1991). Lastly, this research will provide more
insight into how the competencies of an HR consultant, a trusted advisor with strategic
management knowledge (Maister, Green, & Galford, 2000), can assist small business
leaders with aligning their HR architecture with business strategy.
Small businesses are often challenged with having limited resources at their
disposal; therefore, a mistake with managing its employees can be detrimental to the
future success of the organization (Reda, Dyer & Molson, 2010).Reda, et al. (2010)
explained how finding and keeping employees is critical in a small business but can be
very costly to recruit and train, especially if the hired employee does not work out and a
second hire takes place for one position. It is critical that small business leaders
implement the HR practices for hiring, compensating, and retaining employees that
2
scholars have determined to positively impact performance. Ofori and Aryeetey (2011)
found that effective recruiting and hiring practices are critical to the continued success of
small to mid-sized companies. Galetic and Nacinovic (2006) indicated that compensation
management can contribute to competitive advantage as well help increase labor
effectiveness. In their research, Reda, et al. (2010) found perceived owner commitment
was a key component of employee loyalty and retention with small businesses.
Both the scholar and practitioner communities will benefit from this study
because it will extend the research on small to mid-sized companies, the resource based
view of strategy, and competitive advantage. This research will contribute to ongoing
research in the field of human resources by providing HR scholars with a foundation to
extend this research to a global perspective. Additionally, HR consultants will be able to
better appreciate the value they can add by assisting small business leaders with their HR
needs relating to the practices that impact competitive advantage. Senior Professional
Human Resource (SPHR) consultants will be able to expand the discipline into strategic
management consulting, by using this research on the benefits of formulating and
establishing competitive strategies through leveraging the capabilities of human
resources.
Background of the Study
The background of a study is important because it provides an overview of the
underlying theory for a study, as well as the contributions and recommendations that
seminal authors, closely aligned with this research, made to the evolution of the theory.
It is equally important to understand the current state of the research and where there are
opportunities to continue to advance the research well into the future. The following is a
3
synopsis of the theories and concepts that frame this study, including resource based
theory of strategy, strategic management, HR practices, the role of a trusted advisor, and
sustainable competitive advantage.
The resource-based view theory of strategy was first introduced to the scholarly
community by Birger Wernerfelt in the mid-1980s. The premise of the resource-based
view theory is that, similar to products, the resources of a firm can be used as part of the
strategic plan to compete in the marketplace (Wernerfelt, 1984). By the early 1990s, the
first study of human resources from a resource-based view perspective was conducted by
Wright, McMahan, and McWilliams (1994). Over the years, the resource-based view
theory has been used by many scholars as the theoretical framework for studies on human
resources (Coff, 1997; Colbert, 2004; Nyberg, Moliterno, Hale, & Lepak, 2014). Having
been used by scholars in a significant number of studies on human resources and strategy,
increases the confidence level that the resource-based view theory of strategy is suitable
as the underlying theory for this study as well (Grant, 2013; Allen & Wright, 2006;
Colbert, 2004).
There are three different types of competitive strategies that companies can use
for their strategic management efforts when competing in the marketplace, including a
differentiation strategy, a cost strategy, or Porter’s focus (Porter, 1980). A differentiation
strategy will be the main focus of this study. Blau (1970) first introduced the theory of
differentiation, which posits that the larger the organization the more structural
differentiation can be created. Significant contributions have been made by scholars over
the years to the notion of a differentiation strategy and have laid a strong foundation for a
human resource based differentiation strategy (Child, 1972; Miles, Snow, Meyer, &
4
Coleman, 1978; Porter, 1980; Devanna, Fombrun, Tichy, & Warrant, 1982; Dyer, 1983;
Schuler & Jackson, 1987; Wright & McMahan, 1992). One of the ways in which a
company can create a human resource based differentiation strategy is through its internal
human resource practices.
Human resource practices and their relationship to competitive strategy have been
studied by scholars since the 1980s (Schuler & MacMillan, 1984; Schuler & Jackson,
1987). A decade later, MacDuffie (1995) studied the bundling or grouping of HR
practices into a structured work system, and found that when grouped together the HR
practices had a much greater impact on firm performance than when implemented
individually. Extending this research, Lepak and Snell (1999) introduced the term human
resource (HR) architecture, referring to the alignment of “different employment modes,
employment relationships, HR configurations, and criteria for competitive advantage” (p.
32). Over the years, scholars have conducted research on the importance of companies
having an HR architecture and aligning the HR practices with the strategic initiatives of
business (Wright, Gardner, Moynihan, & Allen, 2005; Becker & Huselid, 2006; Chew,
2010; Heneman & Milanowski, 2011; Beh & Loo, 2013). While there is considerable
research on human resource practices in companies of all sizes, there is a gap in the
research on the role of a human resource consultant assisting small business leaders with
aligning their HR architecture with their business strategy to establish sustainable
competitive advantage.
Consultants as trusted advisors can assist companies with establishing a
competitive business strategy by helping the company to implement a new business
method or solution (Schaffer, 2002). An HR consultant as trusted advisor can use his or
5
her human resource experience and knowledge through a “process-consultation model” to
help companies with their human resource needs (Schein, 1990, p. 59). Kim and Lee
(2012) found supporting evidence that HR practices can enrich strategic capabilities, an
area that a consultant or trusted advisor could assist businesses with implementing new
practices that optimize organizational performance. Scholars have found a link between
a unique system of HR practices and sustainable competitive advantage (Kim & Lee,
2012; Beh & Loo, 2013). HR consultants, possessing a strategic management
background, can also assist small business leaders in developing a differentiation strategy
through the creative utilization of their talent pool (Allen & Wright, 2006).
Competitive advantage has been a topic of discussion for several decades (Porter,
1980; Wright, McMahan, & McWilliams, 1994; Desarbo, Benedetto, Song, & Sinha,
2005; He, 2012). The ability for a company to maintain an advantage over competitive
forces is called sustainable competitive advantage (Grant, 1991). Schuler and MacMillan
(1984) found a connection between a firm’s human resource management practices and
its ability to establish a sustainable competitive advantage. Over the years the scholarly
community has conducted significant research on the internal HR practices of a company
and the ability to sustain competitive advantage in the marketplace (Wright, McMahan, &
McWilliams, 1994; Kazlauskaite, & Buciuniene, 2008; Dar, Yusoff, & Azam, 2011;
Campbell, Coff, & Kryscynski, 2012). The resource based view of strategy, HR
practices, and sustainable competitive advantage have been studied for many decades, but
there is a gap in the literature on the role of an HR consultant assisting small business
leaders with establishing sustainable competitive advantage by aligning the HR
architecture with the business strategy. (Allen & Wright, 2006).
6
Statement of the Problem
Scholars have posited the resource based view of strategy (Wernerfelt, 1984;
Barney, 1991; Colbert, 2004; Arend & Levesque, 2010) as an important theoretical
underpinning for strategic management, including strategic analysis, formulation, and
implementation. The practical application of the theory is most evident in settings where
strategy management consultants assist top management of major corporations. Recent
literature has identified a gap in the research and calls for additional studies that casts the
HR professionals in the role of the management consultant to apply the resource-based
view and other HR capabilities in strategic management settings, to assist companies with
aligning their HR architecture with business strategy to establish sustainable competitive
advantage (Colbert, 2004; Kunc & Morecroft, 2010). Becker and Huselid (2006)
recommended that additional research be conducted on how HR professionals can help
managers create and sustain competitive advantage. Allen and Wright (2006) agreed and
called for additional research on how the resource-based view of strategy can support the
use of human resource management to improve firm performance. This study addresses
the gap noted above as well as how HR professionals can help small business leaders
create and sustain competitive advantage by aligning the HR architecture in the company
with the business strategy.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to examine the degree to which an HR consultant
establish a sustained competitive advantage for the business. Specifically, can HR
consultants’ strategic management knowledge of the resource based view theory of
7
strategy be transferred to small business leaders to formulate and sustain competitive
advantage (Barney & Wright, 1998)?
The approach taken to understanding the relationship between HR consultants’
strategic management knowledge of the resource based view theory of strategy and
assisting small business leaders to formulate and sustain competitive advantage is
outlined in the conceptual framework in Figure 1 in the nature of the study section in
Chapter 1. The dependent variable is sustainable competitive advantage, defined as the
ability of an organization to provide differentiation of products and/or services and
financial performance in the competing marketplace (Becker & Huselid, 2006). The
independent variables include HR consultant’s acceptance as a trusted advisor, HR
consultant’s knowledge of strategic management of the business, and HR Architecture.
Lawler and Boudreau (2009) believed that as a strategic partner or trusted advisor, an HR
professional is not only a resource to properly align employees with the business strategy,
but they also participate in developing, implementing, and executing business strategy.
Becker and Huselid (2006) indicated “that it is the fit between the HR architecture and
the strategic capabilities and business processes that implement strategy that is the basis
of HR’s contribution to competitive advantage” (p. 899). Lawler and Boudreau (2009)
additionally believed that to best contribute to a business strategy, it is important for an
HR professional to understand both the internal and external environment. Grant (2013)
stated that "competitive advantage is achieved when a firm matches its internal strengths
in resources and capabilities to the key success factors of the industry (external
environment)" (p. 374). By partnering with an HR consultant, small businesses can
utilize the knowledge and experience of the HR advisor to establish the proper
8
architecture for small business managers to gain and sustain competitive advantage
(Lawler & Boudreau, 2009).
Rationale
Through quantitative research methods, scholars have found relationships
between HR professional competencies, strategic roles, firm performance, and human
resource practice effectiveness. Abdullah, Musa, and Ali (2011) used exploratory factor
analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and structural equation modeling to analyze HR
competencies; enabling the development of an HR Practitioner Competency Model.
Payne (2010) used group statistics, a significance test, the levene test of homogeneity of
variance, and Pearson correlations to analyze HR Managers competencies in strategic
roles (Levene, 1960). Long and Ismail (2008) used the Human Resource Competency
Survey to gather data to conduct a multiple regression to determine the HR competencies
that most positively impact firm performance. Han, Chou, Chao, and Wright (2006)
conducted a confirmatory factor analysis to study the relationship between HR
competency and HR practice effectiveness. Much of the research on HR competencies
has been conducted from an internal perspective, HR professionals employed by the
companies. This study will help identify how the competencies of HR consultants can
help small business leaders establish a sustained competitive advantage for the business
leaders. Becker and Huselid (2006) proposed that small business leaders need “help in
understanding how to generate and sustain those potential returns” (p. 921).
Research Questions
There are four research questions that this study will explore including (1) what is
the relationship between the degree of an HR consultant’s acceptance as a trusted advisor
9
and sustainable competitive advantage (2) what is the relationship between an HR
consultant’s knowledge of strategic management and sustainable competitive advantage,
(3) what is the relationship between HR Architecture and sustainable competitive
advantage, and (4) what is the relationship between the degree of an HR consultant’s
acceptance as a trusted advisor, an HR consultant’s knowledge of strategic management,
HR Architecture, and sustainable competitive advantage?
Significance of the Study
This study will extend the resource based view of strategy, the research on
sustainable competitive advantage, the research on strategic management, and the link
between manager decision making and firm performance in small businesses. It will
extend the research on the role HR consultants can play in enabling managers to
contribute to formulating and sustaining competitive advantage through aligning their
strategic decision making processes with HR practices. Allen and Wright (2006)
believed that the foundation of all strategic HR research is the resource-based view
theory. A majority of the research on the relationship between HR and sustainable
competitive advantage has been conducted on larger organizations, which may not
always relate to small businesses because they may not always have access to the same
resources as larger organizations (Fening & Amaria, 2011). This study may provide a
marketable value proposition for both HR consultants, possessing strategic management
experience, and small business leaders, who can use the assistance of an HR professional
to help with business strategy (Wright, McMahan, & McWilliams, 1994; Newbert, 2008;
Becton & Schraeder, 2009; Ulrich & Brockbank, 2009). Small business owners who
recognize that their employees are valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable, can
10
benefit from the knowledge and experience of an HR professional, a trusted advisor with
a strategic management competency, to help them capitalize on their talents to achieve
corporate goals (Wright, McMahan, & McWilliams, 1994). HR professionals who can
strategically partner with an organization can not only make contributions to the HR field
but become a vital part of the future vitality of an organization (Becton & Schraeder,
2009). This research will provide information that will continue to advance the theory
and practice of HR strategy. Ulrich and Brockbank (2009) firmly believed that an HR
professional can link the people part of business with the business strategy.
Definition of Terms
There are six key terms that will be used in this study and are defined here
including an HR consultant’s acceptance as a trusted advisor, an HR consultant’s
knowledge of strategic management, HR architecture, sustainable competitive advantage,
small business, and small business leader.
HR consultant’s acceptance as trusted advisor
HR consultant’s acceptance as trusted advisor, is a small business leaders’
perception that an HR consultant can be trusted to provide advice on business decisions
relating to business strategy. An HR consultant develops trust by establishing
relationships with small business leaders, collaborating on strategic decisions, and by
providing unbiased recommendations (Neu, Gonzalez, & Pass, 2011).
HR consultant’s knowledge of strategic management
HR consultant’s knowledge of strategic management is the competency of the HR
consultant to integrate theories, practices, and models of strategy with knowledge of the
firm and its industry environment and experiences of the HR consultant. To become a
11
strategic partner, Barney and Wright (1998) indicated that HR professionals must
understand the value of people, economic consequences of human resource practices,
how human resource practices compare with competing companies, and the role of the
human resources function in building organizational capabilities.
HR Architecture
HR architecture is the bundling of internal practices that are utilized to manage
human capital including those surrounding onboarding, performance management,
training, disciplining, and terminating employees (Lepak & Snell, 1999).
Sustainable competitive advantage
Sustainable competitive advantage is the ability of an organization to provide
differentiation of products and/or services and financial performance in the competing
marketplace over a long period of time (Becker & Huselid, 2006).
Small Business
The small business administration generally defines a small business as an
independently owned business organized for profit with fewer than 500 employees
(www.sba.gov). The small business administration does impose size standards by
industry that could be less than 500 employees; however, for this study the general
definition listed above is used.
Small Business Leader
The small business leader is an individual who either owns or leads a small
business as defined above. Additionally, for purposes of this study the small business
leader must have at least one person report to him or her.
12
Limitations and Assumptions
The resource based view theory of strategy provides the theoretical framework for
this study, and as such it will be assumed that human resources are a resource that
contribute to strategy (Barney, 1991). Previous studies have shown a relationship
between human resources, strategy, and sustainable competitive advantage (Dar, et al.,
2011); therefore, topical assumptions were made that human resources can be a
contributing factor to strategy and sustainable competitive advantage. Due to quantitative
studies being used heavily for studies on human resources, a methodological assumption
was made that a quantitative study would be a reliable and valid approach for this
research study (Swanson & Holton, 2005). The only anticipated limitation to this research
is that the survey instrument for this study has not been used to collect data previously, so
there is no historical data that can be used to compare against the results.
Conceptual Framework
Many theories have framed the study of strategy, human resources, and
sustainable competitive advantage. The resource based view theory of strategy is a
common denominator in the literature in these three areas. The premise of the resource
based view theory of strategy is the utilization of resources and capabilities that cannot be
imitated or substituted, as a way to improve firm performance (Barney, 1991; Newbert,
2008; Grant, 2013). Through the creative utilization of human, organizational, and
physical resources, companies can position themselves to gain competitive advantage by
creating a value that competitors cannot copy or replace (Barney, 1991; Colbert, 2004).
Dar, et al. (2011) mentioned specifically the relationship between human capital, human
resource practices, and the decision making process in a company is critical to
13
competitive advantage. Based on this supporting evidence, the resource based view of
strategy will be used to frame this study. Strategic Management, Trusted Advisor, HR
architecture, sustainable competitive advantage, and an HR consultant’s effectiveness in
establishing sustainable competitive advantage are the constructs in this study. See Figure
1 below for the conceptual framework.
Independent Variables Dependent Variable
HR Consultant's
Acceptance as
Trusted Advisor
HR Consultant's
Sustainable
Knowledge of
Competitive
Strategic
Advantage
Management
HR
Architecture
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework
Strategic Management
There are three theories that have dominated the research on strategic
management including the resource base view theory, industrial organization theory, and
dynamic capabilities approach theory (Wilson, 2012). The resource based view theory of
strategy focuses on internal factors impacting the strategy of companies; whereas, the
industrial organization theory and dynamic capabilities approach theory focus on external
factors impacting business strategy (Wilson, 2012). According to Grant (2013), strategic
management evolved from corporate planning to a “focus on competition as the central
characteristic of the business environment, and on performance maximization as the

14
primary goal of strategy” (p. 13). The resource based view theory of strategy will
provide a framework to study the strategic management knowledge of HR consultants,
and if there is a relationship between this knowledge and sustainable competitive
advantage.
HR professionals are often times viewed as strategic partners. Cabrera and
Cabrera (2003) believed that HR professionals are a strategic partner if they possess the
ability to align HR practices with business objectives. Payne (2010) believed that
strategic management, business knowledge, management of talent, employee relations,
quality of work-family life, and information technology were critical competencies that
an HR professional possess to be able to fulfill a strategic partner role. Ulrich,
Brockbank, and Johnson (2009) felt it was important for HR professionals to link human
resources with business strategies, capitalizing on individual abilities and organization
capabilities as a way to formulate competitive advantage. These attributes of strategic
management that are most important to an HR consultant’s credibility are discussed as
variables later in this research plan.
Trusted Advisor
In addition to being a strategic partner, it is important for HR professionals to be
perceived as a trusted advisor (Long & Ismail, 2008). While there are many traits
important to being a trusted advisor, Maister, et al. (2000) summarized the characteristics
into three basic skills including earning trust, building relationships, and giving advice
effectively. When the role of HR professional or consultant is embraced by leaders of a
company, they can most effectively assist companies (Chen, Hsu, & Yip, 2011). A
positive relationship exists between firm performance and HR’s involvement in the
15
strategic planning process when line managers perceived HR as being effective (Chen, et
al., 2011). The role of trusted advisor will be further discussed as variables later in this
research plan.
HR Architecture
The human capital theory, resource based view theory, and transaction cost
economics have over the years all been utilized to study human resources. (Lepak &
Snell, 1999). According to Colbert (2004), the resource based view theory has helped to
bring together the fields of strategy and human resource management. The resource
based view theory has long been used by scholars to study the relationship between the
field of human resources, strategy, and competitive advantage (Wright, McMahan, &
McWilliams, 1994; Coff, 1997; Colbert, 2004). The resource based view theory of the
firm has evolved into a theoretical foundation that is used in many studies, and is
respected in the scholarly community.
Scholars believe that the HR practices of an organization can lead to sustainable
competitive advantage. Barney & Wright (1998) believed “the challenge for HR is to
develop systems of HR practices that create a synergistic effect rather than develop a set
of independent best practices of HR….the interrelatedness of the system components
makes the advantage difficult, if not impossible, for competitors to identify and copy” (p.
40). Lepak and Snell (1999) labeled this system of HR practices as “the human resource
architecture” (p. 31). Becker and Huselid (2006) firmly believed that “the fit between the
HR architecture and the strategic capabilities and business processes that implement
strategy that is the basis of HR’s contribution to competitive advantage” (p. 899). The
resource based view theory of strategy is the framework to analyze the HR architecture of
16
small businesses and whether or not it is a resource that can be used to establish
Sustainable Competitive Advantage
The industrial organization economic theory, resource based view theory, and
game theory have been used to study competitive advantage (Barney, 1991; Wright,
McMahan, & McWilliams, 1994; Newbert, 2008). Scholars have long used the resource
based view theory as the framework for their studies on sustainable competitive
advantage (Barney, 1991; Wright, McMahan, & McWilliams, 1994; Newbert, 2008).
Competitive advantage is achieved if a company has resources and capabilities that are
valuable and rare (Newbert, 2008). When these resources and capabilities are not able to
be copied by competitors and cannot be substituted by another product or service then a
firm is able to sustain a competitive advantage (Newbert, 2008). Barney (1991)
suggested that “by implementing strategies that exploit their internal strengths, through
responding to environmental opportunities, while neutralizing external threats and
avoiding internal weaknesses” companies can achieve sustainable competitive advantage
(p. 99). In their study, Dar, et al. (2011) found that organizations can achieve sustainable
competitive advantage through managing human capital to increase firm performance.
The resource based view theory provides the framework to determine if human resources
can be used as a resource in a business strategy so that a company can establish
Organization of the Remainder of the Study
The organization for the remainder of the study includes a thorough review of the
research on the topic of this study and will be provided in the literature review in chapter
17
2. The research design selected, the data collection process utilized, and the data analysis
performed will be discussed in the third chapter. The fourth chapter will present the
findings of the study conducted. Chapter 5 will include a discussion of the researcher’s
conclusions and recommendations for future research. Implications and limitations of the
study will also be presented in chapter 5. A complete listing of references and any
appendix items will be enclosed at the end of the dissertation.
18
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
establish a sustained competitive advantage for the business. The literature review will
identify, describe, evaluate, and synthesize the studies conducted surrounding the
conceptual framework for this study. The evolution of the studies on HR consultant’s
acceptance as trusted advisor, an HR consultant’s knowledge of strategic management,
HR architecture, and sustainable competitive advantage will be presented. Concluding
thoughts will be provided to support the contributions this study will make to the existing
body of knowledge in the field of human resources and strategy.
Trusted Advisor
The ability of an HR consultant to establish relationships with small business
leaders is important, and equally important is the ability of small business leaders to trust
and accept the advice of an HR consultant as a trusted advisor (Neu, et al., 2011). A
trusted advisor is someone who “develops an in-depth understanding of an individual
customer’s business; he or she collaborates with and provides unbiased recommendations
to a customer on how to achieve desired outcomes from a complex system. A trusted
advisor participates in both the formulation and the implementation of a solution to a
customer’s problem, not just the implementation of the customer’s solution to his or her
problem” (Neu, et al., 2011, p. 239). A trusted advisor places more emphasis on the
relationship than on the task at hand (Maister, et al., 2000). Most people should agree
19
that one of the key factors in building a relationship is trust (Canbeck, 1998; Maister, et
al., 2000).
Trust is defined as “the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of
another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action
important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party”
(Mayer, David, & Schoorman, 1995, p. 712). There are three characteristics that describe
the relationship between a client (trustor) and a trusted advisor (trustee) including ability,
benevolence, and integrity (Mayer, et al., 1995). Ability is “that group of skills,
competencies, and characteristics that enable a party to have influence within some
specific domain” (Mayer, et al., 1995, p. 717). Benevolence is “the extent to which a
trustee is believed to want to do good to the trustor, aside from an egocentric profit
motive” (p. 718). Integrity is “the trustor’s perception that the trustee adheres to a set of
principles that the trustor finds acceptable” (Mayer, et al., 1995, p. 719). Without trust, an
advisor or consultant would not be accepted by a company to assist with strategic
initiatives (Lambrechts, Bouwen, Grieten, Huybrechts, & Schein, 2011; Grunbaum,
Andresen, Hollensen, & Kahle, 2013).
Scholars have identified several critical success factors in the relationship
between a client and consultant. In his research Canbeck (1998) summarized the
literature into three main points on the relationship between a consultant and a company
including (1) consultants can assist executives with addressing the most pressing issues
on the short and long-term agenda, (2) consultants can share their experience and ability
to solve problems with clients to help improve processes, and (3) based on mutual trust
consultants can help clients work through complicated issues. In their quantitative study,
20
Appelbaum and Steed (2005) found that the buy-in of the executive team, clear, well
communicated expectations, and prioritizing client results over consultant deliverables
were critical success factors in the relationship between a client and consultant.
(Applebaum & Steed, 2005). Grunbaum, et al. (2013) argued that “developing long-term
personal relationships with customers is one of the most important key success factors in
the consulting industry” (p. 27). HR consultants who develop successful relationships
with clients, as described above, on a foundation of trust can be perceived as a trusted
advisor by small business leaders.
HR Consultant as Trusted Advisor
Scholars have identified the competencies needed by HR professionals to
be most effective in helping companies with strategic initiatives. A competency is the set
of behavioral skills that an individual possesses enabling him or her to effectively
perform (Long & Ismail, 2008). In their study of HR professionals from Malaysian
manufacturing companies, Long and Ismail (2008) found that business knowledge,
strategic contributions, personal credibility and HR delivery were the competencies
needed by HR professionals to most effectively improve firm performance (Long &
Ismail, 2008). Long and Ismail (2008) argued that “HR professionals must master the
necessary competencies, which include mastery of the HR knowledge that comes only
from being familiar with the concepts, language, logic, and practices of HR that are the
result of research and training. Furthermore, mastery of the above abilities comes from
being able to apply the knowledge within specific business settings” (p. 65). Rowden
(1999) believed that HR professionals must possess seven key skills including (1) global
operating skills, (2) savvy business and financial knowledge, (3) strategic visioning,
21
critical thinking and problem solving skills, (4) ability to efficiently use information
technology, (5) profound HR knowledge, (6) ability to manage change, and (7)
organizational effectiveness skills. Lambrechts, et al. (2011) believed that humble
inquiry was the most important competency.
HR professionals who want to become a trusted advisor should embrace the
notion of humble inquiry (Lambrechts, et al., 2011). Edgar H. Schein coined the term
humble inquiry, and described it as “that which encompasses both an attitude and a
behavior of the helper, embodies ‘accessing your ignorance’ and becoming open to what
may be learned from each other in the actual situation through observing, genuine open
empathic questioning, careful listening, self-inquiry, not judging but suspending
judgment, and shifting helping as necessary” (Lambrechts, et al., 2011, p. 132). Schein
(1990) argued that human inquiry is essential in a consulting or advising relationship.
Through humble inquiry, a trusted advisor can truly understand the needs of their client
and determine the most effective way to help the company with their competitive
strategy.
Over the past few decades scholars have studied the ways in which HR
professionals can best add strategic value to a company. Barney & Wright (1998)
believed that the way in which HR executives can make the most significant strategic
contributions is to (1) understand the value of people in the firm and their role in
competitive advantage, (2) understand the economic consequences of the human resource
practices in a firm, (3) understand how the human resources and human resources
practices in a firm compare to those in competing firms, and (4) understand the role the
human resources function in building organizational capability for the future. Rowden
22
(1999) believed the way that HR professionals are most impactful to an organization’s
competitive advantage is by providing companies with high quality candidates and
helping managers strategically employ their human capital. He argued that the HR
function must be a “service that helps managers create customized strategic plans to
influence the effectiveness of company performance” (p. 22). HR consultants as trusted
advisors who understand the internal and external environment of their clients can
influence the competitive strategy used to compete in the marketplace.
Trust is a critical component in the relationship between a trusted advisor and a
client. HR consultants, who possess the competencies discussed above, that employ a
humble inquiry technique will be most successful in establishing the relationship as
trusted advisor. This will enable the HR consultant as trusted advisor to most effectively
assist companies with their competitive strategy. The ability to build relationships,
collaborate on strategic decisions, and provide unbiased recommendations requires an
HR trusted advisor to have knowledge of strategic management (Neu, et al., 2011).
Knowledge of Strategic Management
Strategic management has been viewed as a two stage process including strategy
planning and strategy implementation (Grant, 2013). The strategy planning process
includes analyzing the internal and external environments and formulating the plan that
will be used to gain competitive advantage (Walker, 2009). The strategy implementation
or execution phase is the carefully thought out, systematic actions or operational
decisions used to carry out the strategy (Radomska, 2014). Factors to consider during
strategy implementation include internal processes, people, systems, and the business
environment (Radomska, 2014). The people of an organization are an integral part of
23
the strategic management process, requiring that the human resource function be included
in the strategy planning and implementation phases.
Over the past 25 years, there have been several key advances in the studies of
human resources and strategy. The first discussions on human resource management and
strategic planning occurred in the early 1980s (Devanna, et al., 1982; Dyer, 1983; Golden
& Ramanujam, 1985). During the 1980s most of the human resource strategies were
functional in nature, meaning they focused only on parts of the human resource function
such as training or compensation (Golden & Ramanujam, 1985; Lengnick-Hall &
Lengnick-Hall; 1988; Gubman, 2004). By the 1990s HR strategies shifted to focus more
on capabilities, addressing the business culture and competencies needed to compete in
the marketplace (Truss & Gratton, 1994; Gubman, 2004). At the turn of the century, a
third shift was seen whereby HR strategies were focused on the results needed to align
with the overall competitive strategy of a company (Gubman, 2004). This focus on
organizational performance, rather than individual performance, is considered to be
strategic human resource management (Becker & Huselid, 2006).
The term strategic human resource management entered the literature in 1992
when Wright and McMahan (1992) defined it as “the pattern of planned human resource
deployments and activities to enable the firm to achieve its goals” (p. 298). Schuler
(1993) further defined strategic human resources management as “ensuring that (1)
human resources (HR) management is fully integrated with the strategy and the strategic
needs of the firm; (2) HR policies cohere both across policy areas and across hierarchies;
and (3) HR practices are adjusted, accepted, and used by line managers and employees as
part of their everyday work” (p. 18). Colbert (2004) brought practice and theory together
24
when he paired the resource-based view with strategic human resource management,
arguing that employees are critically important to the strategic process and that HR
practices are vital to developing strategic human resource capabilities. Over the next
decade, scholars confirmed that the resource based view theory of strategy was a suitable
underlying theory for strategic human resource management by performing quantitative
studies.
Based on the seminal work of Wright and McMahan (1992) on strategic human
resource management, many scholars have advanced the research with studies on the
relationship between strategic human resource management and firm performance
(Huselid, 1993; Ojo, 2011; Uen, Ahlstrom, Chen, & Tseng, 2012). Ojo (2011) surveyed
106 individuals in the Nigerian banking industry to determine if there was a relationship
between strategic human resource management and firm performance. A regression
analysis was conducted on the data collected, and the hypotheses were supported
showing that there is a positive relationship between strategic human resource
management and firm performance (Ojo, 2011). Uen, et al. (2012) conducted a
hierarchical regression on survey data collected from 244 individuals representing 42
Taiwan companies. These scholars were also able to support their hypotheses in which
there is a significant relationship between HR service quality, expectations of HR
contributions, and HR strategic participation. Uen, et al. (2012) further confirmed that
by increasing HR service quality, the degree of internal customer satisfaction, HR
professionals can add strategic value to the organization. HR professionals who can
strategically align the human resource function and practices with the company strategy
25
are considered strategic partners (Rowden, 1999; Cabrera & Cabrera, 2003; Lawler &
Boudreau, 2009; Barney & Wright, 1998).
To be a strategic partner, an HR professional must be “directly involved in the
major business decisions of the organization, including the formation of strategy, the
design of the organization and the implementation of the business model” (Lawler &
Boudreau, 2009, p. 15). Barney and Wright (1998) indicated that HR professionals must
understand the value of people, economic consequences of human resource practices,
how human resource practices compare with competing companies, and the role of the
human resources function in building organizational capabilities. Cabrera and Cabrera
(2003) believed that “being a strategic partner calls for an ongoing evaluation of the
alignment between current HR practices and the business objectives of the firm, and a
continuing effort to design policies and practices that maximize this alignment” (p. 42).
Becoming a strategic partner takes time, but can be done by building relationships with
stakeholders (appreciating and understanding their needs), by recommending actions, and
providing continuous support to all levels of management in their quest for reaching
business goals (Boldizzoni & Quarantino, 2011). Knowledge of strategic management is
an important competency for HR professionals (Lawler & Boudreau, 2009; Payne, 2010;
Brockbank, Ulrich, Younger, & Ulrich, 2012).
HR Competencies in Strategic Management
It is important for HR leaders to have the “capability to understand, shape and
influence strategy” (Lawler & Boudreau, 2009, p.16). They further believed that through
unique insights on how to best leverage talent, HR professionals can positively impact the
strategic management process (Lawler & Boudreau, 2009). When studying the
26
perceptions of HR managers and non-HR managers, Payne (2010) confirmed both groups
believed strategic management to be the most important competency for an HR
professional to possess. In the study, strategic management ability, business knowledge,
management of talent, employee relations, quality of work-family life, and information
technology were used as competencies to test the abilities of HR professionals (Payne,
2010). Additional research was conducted on HR strategic competencies.
Using a factor analysis, Ulrich, et al. (2009) used an HR competency model to
gather data from 10,000 HR professionals and associates worldwide including six
regions. The factor analysis yielded two main categories including people and business.
Ulrich, et al. (2009) believed that HR professionals are responsible for linking “the
human side of business with business strategies and to frame and implement individual
abilities and organization capabilities as a critical source of competitive advantage” (p.
26). The reason they believed was that HR professionals serve employees through care,
concern and compassion (Ulrich, et al., 2009). Additionally Ulrich, et al. (2009) felt that
HR professionals must equally serve customers, vendors, and stakeholders by ensuring
that business strategies are successfully implemented.
Every five years, Brockbank, et al. (2012) conducts a study using an HR
competency model with over 20,000 global participants. Each study conducted builds on
the knowledge previously accumulated about the competencies most needed by HR
professionals. In their latest study, Brockbank, et al. (2012) identified “six domains of
competencies that HR professionals must demonstrate to be personally effective and to
affect business performance including strategic positioner, credible activist, capability
builder, change champion, human resource innovator and integrator, and technology
27
proponent” (p. 2-4). The results of their research yielded that credible activist best
describes the current role of an HR professional within an organization. In this role, the
HR professional demonstrates personal credibility through consistent, transparent, and
insightful communication focused on driving business results (Brockbank, et al., 2012).
Brockbank, et al. (2012) indicated that while it is important to have personal credibility,
the best way to influence business success and be a strategic contributor is through
building capabilities. Some scholars argue that HR professionals may not have the ability
to make strategic contributions (Payne, 2010).
In organizations with an HR department, Payne (2010) was not confident that the
HR professionals in these departments have the ability to think strategically, nor the
business acumen to help drive companies forward. Becker and Huselid (2006) pointed
out that most HR professionals are lacking the professional degrees and certifications to
support their competencies. The HR Certification institute and the Society of Human
Resource Development both offer human resource certifications, confirming the
knowledge, skills, abilities, and competencies of HR professionals. Boldizzoni and
Quarantino (2011) agreed that senior management have utilized external consultants
more frequently in recent years as a result of internal HR professionals lacking reliability
and competency. HR consultants have a reputation for being leaders with “the capability
to understand, shape, and influence strategy” (Lawler & Boudreau, 2009, p. 16). As long
as HR consultants are perceived to have the necessary competencies by non-HR
managers, they can add strategic value to a company as a trusted advisor (Long &
Ismail).
28
An HR consultant can demonstrate their strategic management knowledge by
analyzing the internal and external environments, formulating a strategy that leverages
talent and practices, and implementing the processes that are aligned with the strategy
(Walker, 1999). There are several different roles that HR professionals can play in the
strategic planning process including advocate, stakeholder, and facilitator (Rowden,
1999). As an advocate, an HR professional prompts the strategic planning process and
acts as a driving force to successful completion. As a stakeholder, an HR professional
provides insight on the human resource management needs. As a facilitator, an HR
professional works to solve some of the problems that may arise during the strategic
planning process (Rowden, 1999). By fulfilling these roles, demonstrating strategic
management knowledge, an HR professional or consultant works with the senior
management team on major business decisions that impact the strategic planning process
(Lawler & Boudreau, 2009).
During the analysis phase of strategic planning, the internal and external
environments are evaluated by the senior management team. The industry is reviewed to
better understand the competition, the current state of the market, technological forces,
customer demands, and vendor supplies. Critical success factors are defined, and
organizational capabilities are assessed (Walker, 1999). HR consultants can provide
insight on the internal people capabilities and the external talent pool that is available
(Ulrich, et al., 2009). Understanding the current gaps that exist as well as how best to fill
the gaps, is an additional way in which HR consultants can provide value to the strategic
planning process (Walker, 1999).
29
The formulation phase of the strategic planning process is defining the plan that
will be used to gain competitive advantage (Walker, 2009). During this part of the
process the mission, values, vision, culture and management philosophy are defined.
Objectives and priorities are established, so an action plan can be created. The
appropriate resources, steps, timing, and performance measures are identified. HR
consultants can provide information and data that supports the action plan, and develop
the strategies that will be used to acquire and retain the people needed to execute the
strategic plan (Walker, 1999; Lawler & Boudreau, 2009).
Research has shown that successful strategy implementation can be a key
component in setting a company a part from the competition (Barney, 2001; Becker &
Huselid, 2006; Ulrich, et al., 2009). Strategy implementation includes using people,
systems, and processes to execute the strategy established during the planning process
(Radomska, 2014). Measurements, rewards, staffing, training, and communications were
all found to be important factors for a successful implementation, placing HR in the
middle of the strategic process (Ulrich, et al., 2009). Becker and Huselid (2006) argued
that the HR architecture of an organization is critical for a successful strategy
implementation. During implementation, HR consultants can use their personal
creditability and knowledge of strategic management to help companies enable effective
change through consistent, transparent and insightful communication (Walker, 1999;
Brockbank, et al., 2002).
The call for human resource professionals to be included in the strategic planning
process has received increased attention over the past few decades (Dyer, 1983; Wright &
McMahan, 1992; Rowden, 1999; Becton & Schraeder, 2009; Lawler & Boudreau, 2009;
30
Payne, 2010; Boldizzoni & Quarantino, 2011). HR consultants who understand the
strategic management process can help companies evaluate existing internal resources
and capabilities as well as develop those resources and capabilities needed to compete in
the marketplace. The ability to shape and influence strategy will enable an HR consultant
to help leaders formulate a strategy that will enable the company to establish and sustain
competitive advantage. As a trusted advisor, an HR consultant can effectively help
implement strategies with the creative use the people related practices, processes and
systems.
HR Architecture
Conversations about aligning human resource practices with business strategy
date back to the mid-1970s (Miles & Snow, 1984). Through quantitative studies, many
scholars have confirmed there is a positive relationship between HR practices and firm
performance (Schuler & MacMillan, 1984; Schuler & Jackson, 1987; Schuler, 1992;
Collins & Clark, 2003; Bowen & Ostroff, 2004; Erdil & Gunsel, 2007; Akhtar, Ding, &
Ge, 2008; Fening & Amaria, 2011; Ojo, 2011; Kim & Lee, 2012; Beh & Loo, 2013).
There appears to be no industry standard on the HR architecture or bundle of HR
practices used by companies, with a large number taking a more informal approach
(Lepak & Snell, 1999). Based on the seminal work of scholars, it appears that a unique
HR architecture can be used to establish and sustain competitive advantage.
The studies on human resource practices date back to the middle of the 20th
century, but it was not until the mid-1980s that human resource practices were viewed as
a system (Miles & Snow, 1984). Miles and Snow (1984) defined a human resource
system as that which includes the practices surrounding the acquisition, training,
31
development, evaluation, and management of employees. They believed that the human
resource system of a company should be aligned with the business strategy of an
organization (Miles & Snow, 1984). Miles and Snow (1984) predicted that to keep pace
with emerging technologies and futuristic growth, human resource departments need to
be part of the strategic planning processes.
Around the same time that Miles and Snow (1984) introduced the concept of a
human resource system, Schuler and MacMillan (1984) studied the ability of a firm to
use human resource management practices as a way to gain competitive advantage.
Schuler and MacMillan (1984) defined human resource practices as “those functions and
activities necessary for the effective management of a company’s resources” (p. 242).
According to Schuler and MacMillan (1984) these practices include human resource
planning, staffing (including recruitment, selection, and socialization), appraising,
compensation, training and development, and union-management relationships. They
introduced a matrix to help companies align human resource practices so companies can
strategically target the competition and thrust themselves ahead of the competition.
Through effective planning, staffing, appraising, compensating, training, and
developing, Schuler and MacMillian (1984) believed companies can strategically target
and thrust themselves to gain competitive advantage. According to Schuler and
MacMillan (1984), strategic targets include customers, distributors/servicers, the
company itself, and vendors/suppliers. They described two strategic thrusts a
cost/efficiency and differentiation. These scholars pointed out Lincoln Electric, IBM,
and Proctor Gamble as few examples of companies that successfully utilized human
32
resources as a way to gain competitive advantage (Schuler & MacMillan, 1984). The
research on human resource practices and strategy continued into the next decade.
Scholars continued to build on the conceptual framework of an HR system
introduced by Miles & Snow (1984), including Rousseau and Wade-Benzoni (1994) who
agreed that it is critical for companies to align human resource (HR) practices with
strategy. Rousseau and Wade-Benzoni (1994) studied the employee and customer
psychological contracts, the beliefs held about the relationships that exists, that developed
as a result of the alignment of HR practices and strategy. Rousseau and Wade-Benzoni
(1994) argued that human resource practices can be used to set expectations and to
influence employee behavior during strategy implementation. Through quantitative
studies, scholars have confirmed a positive relationship exists between HR practices and
firm performance (MacDuffie, 1995; Huselid, 1995; Delaney & Huselid, 1996).
In his quantitative study, MacDuffie (1995) found support for his hypothesis that
an HR system positively impacts firm performance. He used a hierarchical regression
analysis to study data collected from 62 automotive assembly plants. He concluded that
to have the greatest impact on firm performance, innovative HR practices must be used in
a workforce that is motivated, skilled, and adaptable. This combination leads to a high
performance work system (Huselid, 1995).
Huselid (1995) used a national sample of 1000 firms to analyze the impact of high
performance work systems or human resource (HR) management practices on firm
performance. The results of his regression analysis found a positive relationship between
HR practices and firm performance, specifically employee turnover, accounting profits
and firm market value. Delaney and Huselid (1996) conducted a regression analysis as
33
well on 590 companies and also found a relationship between HR practices and firm
performance. Huselid (1995) supported the work of MacDuffie (1995) with his
acknowledgement that a bundle of HR services is more effective than an individual
practice. In a review of the literature, Huselid (1995) concluded that when HR practices
are aligned with a firm’s competitive strategy, they can play an important role in
establishing and sustaining form a practice to a system.
Lepak and Snell (1999) continued the scholarly conversation on human resource
practices, and introduced the term Human Resource (HR) Architecture to describe the
human resource system. HR architecture is the bundling of internal practices that are
utilized to manage human capital including onboarding, performance management,
training, disciplining, and terminating employees (Lepak & Snell, 1999). In their article,
Lepak and Snell (1999) presented a theoretical model for the HR architecture (Lepak &
Snell, 1999). Transaction cost economics, human capital theory, and the resource-based
view of the firm were used as the foundation for the theoretical model. Lepak and Snell
(1999) determined that the value and uniqueness of the human capital of an organization
can significantly impact the effectiveness of the HR architecture and if done so in a
strategic way can be a driver in establishing competitive advantage. The resource-based
view of the firm most closely relates to the aligning of the HR architecture and strategic
management initiatives within a company, and continued to be used as the underlying
theory in more studies.
In their article, Lepak and Snell (2002) discussed how a standardized best practice
approach may not be the most effective when looking at different groups of employees
including knowledge-based workers, job-based workers, contract workers, and
34
alliance/partnership workers. Different employee groups may need to be managed
differently with varying sets of human resource practices due to the unique skill sets of
each group. A universal approach to managing the different employee groups could limit
the ability to cultivate the uniqueness of each group of individuals (Lepak & Snell, 2002).
Companies may approach the bundling of HR practices differently based upon their own
HR philosophy (Lepak & Snell, 2002).
Employing the HR architecture model introduced by Lepak and Snell (1999),
defined above, Chew (2010) applied a Delphi technique to Australian businesses in an
effort to extend the research conducted in the U.S. on the factors influencing the HR
architecture in a company. In her study, Chew (2010) also confirmed that different HR
practice configurations or bundles need to be employed for different employee groups. In
addition to this, Chew (2010) found other factors specific to Australian business that may
potentially impact the HR architecture of a company including “strategic focus of the
organization, organizational structure, competitiveness of the industry, type of industry,
and the type of worker included in the organization” (p. 108). Other scholars have
confirmed that small and medium sized businesses may approach the bundling of HR
practices differently than larger organizations (Cassell, Nadin, Gray, & Clegg, 2002;
Innes & Wiesner, 2012; Allen, Ericksen, & Collins, 2013).
Small to medium sized businesses were studied by Cassell, et al (2002), who
confirmed these companies used an informal approach to the bundling of HR practices.
Additionally, Cassell, et al. (2002) found that HR practices were not driven with a
strategic focus but rather driven by presented issues. This resulted in companies taking
an “ad-hoc” or reactive approach rather than a proactive approach to HR practices (p.
35
689). Innes and Wiesner (2012) found similary findings in their study on owner-operated
companies.
Human resource management practices, in owner-operated companies, are more
reactive and less proactive (Innes & Wiesner, 2012). They cautioned this could signify
that HR is less of a priority, and only a primary focus when an issue arises. Allen, et al.
(2013) recognized that smaller companies may lack the structure and sophistication that
exists in larger organizations, but believed that if owners focus on putting into effect
those HR practices that focus on employee commitment, he or she could positively
impact firm performance. Kotey and Slade (2005) also found small companies to have
informal HR practices, and pointed out that the diversity of human resource practices in
the varying firm sizes must be taken into consideration when providing training and
advice to the management teams of these firms. When designing an HR architecture,
strategic fit needs to be considered.
A regression analysis was conducted by Erdil and Gunsel (2007) to study the
effect of HR practices on HRM-firm strategy fit. They found significant links between
selective hiring, use of teams and decentralization, compensation/incentive contingent on
performance, extensive training, sharing information, and HRM-firm competitive
strategy fit which are components of an HR architecture. They recommended that
companies align these HR practices with firm strategy and performance. Selective hiring
of candidates with the key capabilities to establish and sustain competitive advantage,
and the continual development of those capabilities is critical for a differentiation strategy
(Erdil & Gunsel, 2007). Continuing the research on HR practices and strategy fit, Kim
36
and Lee (2012) focused on the impact that HR practices can have on strategic capabilities
and resources in a differentiation strategy.
Kim and Lee (2012) believed that a majority of research has focused on the
internal fit and combination of HR practices as a means to improve firm performance. As
a result, they introduced an HRM-capability-performance model used to confirm that HR
practices can positively impact capabilities. The authors found that “strategically
different HR practices” lead to better firm performance (Kim & Lee, 2012, p. 141). For
this to be effective in smaller organizations as well as larger organizations, Kim and Lee
(2012) argued that senior executives and the line managers will need to have HR
competencies. Clearly understanding the knowledge, skills, abilities, and behaviors of
small business leaders will allow companies to leverage those talents with their HR
practices towards their efforts in establishing and sustaining competitive advantage
(Becker & Huselid, 2006).
The fit between strategic capabilities, strategy implementation and differentiation
in HR architecture can be a source for achieving sustainable competitive advantage
(Becker & Huselid, 2006). Becker and Huselid (2006) believed that the HR architecture
of a company was one of the “most important strategic assets…it has the potential for
greater inimitability” (p. 900). Using the resource based view of strategy as the
foundation for their work on HR architecture, Becker and Huselid (2006) emphasized
that implementing a strategy for HR architecture could itself be a resource used for
achieving competitive advantage. Subsequently, other models have been introduced in
the literature to assist companies with building an HR architecture, working towards
establishing competitive advantage.
37
The Human Resource Alignment (HRA) Assessment model was introduced to
help companies vertically and horizontally align HR practices with organizational
effectiveness (Heneman & Milanowski, 2011). Heneman and Milanowski (2011)
described vertical alignment as “the degree to which HR practices specifically focus on
identified strategic organizational objectives” (p. 46). Horizontal alignment they
described as “the degree to which practices work together in a mutually supportive and
reinforcing way” (Heneman & Milanowski, 2011, p. 46). Heneman and Milanowski
(2011) acknowledged that their HRA assessment model reliably worked for assessing
vertical alignment, and not so confidently when assessing horizontal alignment. Ullah
and Yasmin (2013) continued the discussion on organizational effectiveness as it related
to HR practices a few years later.
Focusing on internal customer service, Ullah and Yasmin (2013) believed that the
way to improve organization effectiveness was by implementing those HR practices that
focus on “employee morale, organizational commitment, employee productivity, and
ability to attract talent” (p. 2). Data collected from 290 banking personnel in Pakistan
was analyzed with structural equation modeling, where a statistically significant, positive
link was found between internal customer satisfaction, organizational effectiveness, and
human resource practices (Ullah & Yasmin, 2013). Ullah and Yasmin (2013) believed
that HR practices leading to greater employee satisfaction in turn leads to happier
external customers. Quantitative studies continue to confirm the earlier work that there is
a relationship between HR practices and increased firm performance; however, Kaufman
and Miller (2011) extended the research in a new direction.
38
In a review of the literature on human resource practices, Kaufman and Miller
(2011) found that the regression model introduced by Huselid (1995) dominated the
research on HR practices for the past 15 years. Kaufman and Miller (2011) recognized
the contributions that Huselid (1995) made to the field of HR but argued that an
economics-based model may be more appropriate for studying human resource practices.
In their article, Kaufman and Miller (2011) introduced an economics-based model for
HRM practices which included the HRM demand curve and the HRM demand function.
Kaufman and Miller (2011) believed their model was first major alternative to the
Huselid (1995) regression model. In their study, Kaufman and Miller (2011) found their
model “suggests that firm-level differences in the marginal revenues and costs of HRM
practices lead to systematic differences in HRM adoption and expenditure” (p. 553).
The seminal work of Miles and Snow (1984) and Schuler and MacMillan (1984)
on human resource practices and firm performance has continued to evolve over the
years. At this time, there appears to be no universal set of HR practices or HR
architecture that is a best fit for all companies to help establish and sustain competitive
advantage (Kaufman & Miller, 2011). Companies who are able to solidify the fit
between internal HR practices and strategic initiatives, that improve firm performance,
will be able to create an advantage in the marketplace (Kaufman & Miller, 2011).
Effective recruiting, retention, compensation, benefit, and training policies and practices
forming the HR architecture of a company has the potential to become a core competency
that leads to sustainable competitive advantage (Becker & Huselid, 2006). The
organizational design of human resources, capabilities, and practices determine are
influential in the success of strategy implementation.
39
Increasingly human resources is gaining attention by both scholars and
practitioners as a source for sustainable competitive advantage (Miles & Snow, 1984;
Barney, 1991; Wright, McMahan, & McWilliams, 1994; Huselid; 1995; Kazlauskaite &
Buciuniene, 2008; Dar, et al., 2011). Competitive advantage and sustainable competitive
advantage are defined and the seminal work is discussed. The introduction of human
resources into the discussion of sustainable competitive advantage will be evaluated. The
section concludes with closing remarks on how HR professionals can assist small
business leaders with managing employees in a way that contributes to sustainable
Competitive advantage emerges when a company outperforms other companies
competing in the same marketplace (Grant, 2013). There are two ways in which a
company can gain an advantage in the marketplace, either with a cost strategy or
differentiation strategy. To have cost advantage, a company sells products or services at
a lower cost than its competitors. To have a differentiation advantage, a company sells
products or services that consumers are willing to pay a higher price because it is unique
or more valuable than other products or services in the market (Grant, 2013). For
purposes of this study, a differentiation advantage or business strategy will be discussed
in more detail.
The theory of differentiation was introduced to the scholarly community in 1970.
Blau (1970) posited that “the increasing size of organizations generates structural
differentiation along various dimensions at decelerating rates, and structural
40
differentiation enlarges the administrative component in organizations.” (p. 216).
Initially, organizational structure was at the center of the differentiation discussions.
Child (1972) extended the work on differentiation theory, arguing that environment,
technology, and organizational size must be taken into consideration when taking
strategic action. Additionally noting that individuals with decision making authority may
also influence strategic choices (Child, 1972). By the end of the decade, the conversation
on strategy shifted to analyzing the external environment.
The contributions of Miles, Snow, Meyer, and Coleman (1978) and Porter (1980)
propelled the seminal work on strategy and competitive advantage forward, and are held
in high regard within the scholarly community (Desarbo, et al., 2005; Newbert, 2008;
Grant, 2013). Miles, et al. (1978) provided a theoretical framework to assist with
understanding the strategy, structure, and processes of an organization. They believed
that three different types of organizations exist including defenders, analyzers, and
prospectors. Defenders focus on maintaining a stable environment, analyzers minimize
risk and maximize profit opportunities, and prospectors constantly search for new product
and market opportunities. Organizations usually fall into one of these types in an effort to
adapt to the external environment. (Miles, et al., 1978).
In his work, Porter (1980) focused on the competitive forces or pressures that
organizations face when competing in the marketplace. He identified four competitive
forces that influence or shape strategy including threat of entry, bargaining power of
suppliers, threat of substitute products or services, bargaining power of customers, and
the industry. Barriers to entry include economies of scale, product differentiation, capital
requirements, cost disadvantages, access to distribution channels, and government policy.
41
Suppliers can control who enters the market through pricing and product quality either
increasing or decreasing costs and value. Buyers can exercise power with demands on
suppliers for larger quantities or decreased prices. Substitute products and services that
are either higher quality or more cost effective can significantly influence the
marketplace for both suppliers and buyers. Understanding the forces that are present in
the marketplace in which it competes, a company can then develop a strategy to establish
or maintain competitive advantage (Porter, 1980).
When a company is able to maintain an advantage over competing firms, it is said
to have sustainable competitive advantage. Barney (1991) indicated that “firms obtain
sustained competitive advantages by implementing strategies that exploit their internal
strengths, through responding to environmental opportunities, while neutralizing external
threats and avoiding internal weaknesses” (p. 99). He further described sustainable
competitive advantage as when a firm “is implementing a value creating strategy not
simultaneously being implemented by any current or potential competitors and when
these other firms are unable to duplicate the benefits of this strategies” (p. 102). Becker
and Huselid (2006) held that the ability of a company to provide differentiation of
products and/or services and above-average financial performance over a long period of
time are able to sustain competitive advantage. Grant (2013) believed there were three
ways to sustain competitive advantage, through durability, transferability or imitation,
and replicability of resources and capabilities.
Understanding the external environment is critical when companies are seeking to
attain competitive advantage; however, knowing the internal environment is equally
important (Grant, 1991). Organizations that possesses unique and rare resources and
42
capabilities can leverage them as part of a differentiation strategy when competing in the
marketplace (Grant, 1991). Barney (1991) argued that for a resource to be a source of
sustainable competitive advantage it “must have four attributes (1) it must be valuable, in
the sense that it exploits opportunities and/or neutralizes threats in a firm’s environment,
(2) it must be rare among a firm’s current and potential competition, (3) it must be
imperfectly imitable, and (4) there cannot be strategically equivalent substitutes for this
resource that are valuable but neither rare or imperfectly imitable” (p. 106). He further
argued that resources are valuable when they help to increase organizational efficiency
and effectiveness. Experience, judgment, knowledge, and relationships are examples of
organizational resources that can be leveraged for sustainable competitive advantage
(Barney, 1991).
Using the resource-based view of the firm (Wernerfelt, 1984; Barney, 1991),
Wright, et al. (1994) discussed how human resources qualify as a source of sustainable
competitive advantage because they are valuable, rare, and cannot be imitated or
substituted. Newbert (2008) conducted a study which confirmed that the resource-based
view theory strongly supports strategic management and that value, rareness, and
performance are all related to competitive advantage. Each company requires varying
skills and jobs, demanding individuals with differing skills sets. Over time individuals
accrue knowledge and expertise that can become irreplaceable; whereby, through this
human resource capital pool and exclusive employee behavior sustainable competitive
advantage is possible (Wright, et al., 1994). It is a company’s responsibility to
continually invest in its talent pool.
43
Knowledge that is created, groomed and shared internally is an important source
of competitive advantage (Tucker, Meyer, & Westerman, 1996). Aligning internal
capabilities with competitive strategy can position a company to have advantage in the
marketplace (Tucker, et al., 1996). Commitment and involvement are also equally
important to adding value to a firm (Prahalad & Hamel, 1990). Increasing knowledge
and experience can enhance the core competencies of a firm.
Core competencies can be described as the collective learning in a company that
enables it to develop, select, and implement value adding strategies (Prahalad & Hamel,
1990; Lado & Wilson, 1994). Additionally, “organizational competencies include all
firm-specific assets, knowledge, skills, and capabilities embedded in the organization’s
structure, technology, processes, and interpersonal (and intergroup) relationships” (Lado
& Wilson, 1994, p. 702). Lado and Wilson (1994) proposed three types of competencies
including input-based, transformation-based, and out-put based. They described them as
follows, “Input-based competencies encompass the physical resources, organizational
capital resources, human resources, knowledge, skills, and capabilities that enable a
firm’s transformational processed to create and deliver products and services that are
valued by customers” (p. 704). “Transformation-based competencies describe
‘organizational capabilities required to advantageously convert inputs into outputs’ (Lado
et al., 1992:85). These capabilities include innovation and entrepreneurship,
organizational culture, and organizational learning” (p. 705). “Output-based
competencies include all knowledge-based, invisible strategic assets, such as corporate
reputation or image, product or service quality, and customer loyalty” (p. 708). Human
44
resources practices that focus on leveraging organizational resources, capabilities, and
core competencies can facilitate ongoing competitive advantage (Huselid, 1995).
HR systems, or HR architecture, were first looked at as a source of competitive
advantage in the early 1980s (Miles & Snow, 1984). When aligned with a firm’s
competitive strategy, HR practices can be used to leverage a resource for sustained
competitive advantage (Huselid, 1995). Barney and Wright (1998) said it is important
that a system of practices that creates synergy is better than a set of best practices
managed independently. A unique set of HR practices are nearly impossible to imitate
(Barney & Wright, 1998). Sayli (2011) believed that developing a relationship between
human resources practices and competitive strategy can play a significant role in
establishing and sustaining competitive advantage. Wright, et al. (1994) acknowledged
that HR practices alone will not create sustainable competitive advantage but they can
influence employee behavior and the talent pool in a way that increases the uniqueness of
capabilities. Managers also influence the behaviors and capabilities of the human capital
pool.
Managers play a key role in developing human resources into capabilities that
implement a differentiation strategy to sustain competitive advantage. Prahalad and
Hamel (1990) firmly believed managers have the ability to “consolidate corporate-wide
technologies and production skills into competencies that empower individual businesses
to adapt quickly to changing opportunities” (p. 4). Lado and Wilson (1994) discussed
manager competencies such as “(a) the unique capabilities of the organization’s strategic
leaders to articulate a strategic vision, communicate the vision throughout the
organization, and empower organizational members to realize that vision and (b) the
45
unique ability to enact a beneficial firm-environment relationship.” According to Wright,
et al. (1994), managers play an important role in creating an advantage by developing and
exploiting the resources in a company, which has been labeled as an HR advantage
(Boxall, 1998). Becker and Huselid (2006) argued that managers need help in knowing
how to establish and sustain the value that leads to increased financial returns. This is
where the role of an HR professional is beneficial.
According to Barney and Wright (1998), HR professionals ““understand the value
of people in the firm and their role in competitive advantage…understand the economic
consequences of the human resource practices in a firm…understand how the human
resources and human resource practices in a firm compare to those in competing firms…
understand the role of the human resources function in the building organizational
capability for the future” (p. 43). Through effective HR management, utilizing the HR
architecture or unique set of practices, HR professionals can contribute to the competitive
value of a company (Kazlauskaite & Buciuniene, 2008). Kaylani and Sahoo (2011)
recognized that the HR function has always been essential, but believes that HR is now
more than ever a vital part of helping a company establish competitive advantage.
Recent studies confirmed the relationship between HR, human capital and sustainable
Over the past few years, scholars have conducted quantitative studies to confirm
the relationships between human capital, employee capabilities, and sustainable
competitive. In their study, Dar, et al. (2011) surveyed 135 employees from the Pakistan
mobile communication sector and found a statistically significant positive relationship
between human capital and sustainable competitive advantage. Vinayan, Jayashree &
46
Marthandan (2012) also administered a survey to collect data from 300 employees in
Malaysian manufacturing companies. As a result, they developed a measurement tool for
sustainable competitive advantage that measured effective supply chain management,
organizational responsiveness, product differentiation, and cost leadership. They found
“the source of competitive advantage lies in the ability of an organization to differentiate
its products or services is either wholly or partly, via the skills of employees, the
capability of the processes and technologies, and the standard manufacturing procedures
set the management” (p. 34). Companies who can understand the relationships between
resources, capabilities, competitive advantage and profitability will be able to
successfully implement competitive strategies that will continually enhance the value of
the firm (Grant, 1991).
Conclusion
The seminal work on competitive advantage and the ability for companies to
sustain that advantage over time continues to evolve, and appears to be at the forefront on
continued studies on strategy and human resources. There are distinct differences
between establishing competitive advantage and sustaining that advantage over time,
which was thoroughly discussed in this discussion. Human resources continues to
receive attention by the scholarly community as a key player in building and
implementing competitive strategies. Through HR practices, managers and HR
professionals can cultivate the capabilities, competencies, and behaviors of the human
capital pool in a way that positively impacts a company’s advantage in the marketplace.
47
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY
establish a sustained competitive advantage for the business. Specifically, can HR
consultants’ strategic management knowledge of the resource based view theory of
strategy be transferred to small business leaders to formulate and sustain competitive
advantage (Barney & Wright, 1998)? This study explores four research questions: (1)
what is the relationship between the degree of an HR consultant’s acceptance as a trusted
advisor and sustainable competitive advantage, (2) what is the relationship between an
HR consultant’s knowledge of strategic management and sustainable competitive
advantage, (3) what is the relationship between HR Architecture and sustainable
competitive advantage, and (4) what is the relationship between the degree of an HR
consultant’s acceptance as a trusted advisor, an HR consultant’s knowledge of strategic
management, HR Architecture, and sustainable competitive advantage? In this chapter
the research design, sample, instrument/measures, data collection process, data analysis
technique, validity, reliability, and ethical considerations for this study will be discussed.
Research Design
The proposed study will employ a non-experimental quantitative design to test a
hypothetical HR competency model that is framed in the resource-based theory of
strategy on formulating a sustained competitive advantage for business leaders. A
quantitative approach was selected because of the researcher’s philosophical assumptions
to verify theories and determine effects or outcomes. Quantitative research dominates the
48
literature in the field of human resources, supporting the design selection for this study
(Swanson &Holton, 2005). Regression analysis has been used by many scholars over the
years to study the relationship between human resources and firm performance (Khatri,
2000; Lepak & Snell, 2002; Ojo, 2011; Kim & Lee, 2012; Beh & Loo, 2013). Multiple
regression was selected to statistically analyze the data collected through survey research
design. This technique was chosen due to the study having one continuous outcome
variable and both continuous and categorical predictor variables (Field, 2009). A random
sample was collected and analyzed with SPSS software. The target population included
small business leaders working in companies with fewer than 500 employees.
The resource based view theory of strategy provides the theoretical framework for
this study, and as such it will be assumed that human resources are a resource that
contributes to strategy (Barney, 1991). Previous studies have shown a relationship
between human resources, strategy, and sustainable competitive advantage (Dar, et al.,
2011); therefore, topical assumptions were made that human resources can be a
contributing factor to strategy and sustainable competitive advantage. Due to quantitative
methods being used heavily for studies on human resources, a methodological
assumption was made that a quantitative study would be a reliable and valid approach for
this research study (Swanson & Holton, 2005).
Population/Sample
The participants of this study included small business leaders who work in
companies with fewer than 500 employees, and either own the company or had
supervisory control of more than one employee. The Small Business Administration
considers a small business as one with 1-499 employees (www.sba.gov/advocacy).
49
Additionally, only those small business leaders working for a company legally registered
on the East Coast were asked to participate. The researcher, lives and works on the East
Coast, was interested in learning more about small businesses. No other inclusion or
exclusion requirements were used.
The sample for this study was calculated using version 3.1.9.2 of G*Power
(www.r-project.org), see Figure 2 below. A sample size of 74 is required when
conducting a multiple regression with an effect size of .15. The sample was randomly
selected by QuestionPro.com from leaders of businesses who voluntarily participate with
QuestionPro. QuestionPro has access to over a million respondents providing a gateway
for access to a sample that is representative of a larger population
(www.questionpro.com). Survey participants were asked to answer questions for
nominal and ratio data types.
50
Figure 2. G*Power Results
Instruments/Measures
A review of the literature provided no complete survey that could be adopted for
use in this research. Instead, the study’s survey instrument is a combination of new
questions directly relating to an HR consultant as a trusted advisor, business strategy,
competitive strategy, HR architecture, and competitive advantage, see Appendix A for
the copy of the survey. Since the instrument was not used in a prior study, a field test and
pilot test were conducted to establish validity and reliability. Swanson and Holton (2005)
stressed the importance of using a valid and reliable measured in a study.
A field test was conducted on the survey by sending it to colleagues who were
certified human resource professionals, HR consultants, and/or small business leaders.
51
It was important to the researcher to receive feedback on the content validity and
presentation of the survey. Six individuals were selected including two small business
leaders (a co-owner and a VP of Operations), an HR professional with a PHR
certification, an HR professional with her own consulting company, and an individual
holding a doctoral degree who has his own consulting business. The researcher wanted
to obtain multiple perspectives on the survey, to ensure that the target population will
have no difficulty in understanding the survey and to ensure that the data collected could
be used to answer the research question.
A few minor updates were made to the survey instrument, based on the feedback
that was received during the field test. These updates include the modification of the
likert scale labels from very likely/not likely to very important/not important. No other
suggestions were made for improvement. Each respondent completed the survey, and
there were no outlier responses. Based on the feedback, the researcher is confident that
validity was proven. Since there were no major revisions made, a follow up field test was
not required.
A pilot test was completed on SurveyMonkey.com to establish reliability to the
survey instrument. A total of 31 responses were received. No unexpected results were
received during the pilot test; however, after further analysis, the original plans of using a
logistic regression was changed to a multiple regression technique. This necessitated a
redefinition of the dependent variable to a continuous outcome variable (Field, 2009).
Unfortunately SurveyMonkey.com was not confident that they could achieve at least 74
responses, leaving the researcher to find another online provider of survey administration.
QuestionPro.com is another preferred online survey administration provider that Capella
52
University recommends to students, which is who the researcher selected to collect the
data needed for research.
Data Collection
Data was collected using a valid and reliable survey instrument administered by
QuestionPro.com. The researcher initially wanted to obtain responses from small
business leaders that worked for a company that was legally register on the East Coast as
stated in Chapter 1. Unfortunately, QuestionPro.com was unable to guarantee the
response rate needed by only including the four states above. From the million or more
voluntary participants in their database, QuestionPro.com was able to randomly select
small business leaders to participate in the study that met the criteria above. No other
inclusion/exclusion criteria was requested.
QuestionPro.com randomly emailed individuals in their database meeting the
criteria above with a request to voluntarily participate. Interested individuals clicked on a
link that took them an introductory message from the researcher as well as an informed
consent notification (refer to Appendix B). By clicking forward in the survey, the
participant was accepting the informed consent notification. Within 48 hours of
launching the survey, 92 responses were received. Due to the quick turn-around time and
achieving the desired number of responses, no follow up requests to participate were
needed.
Data was collected for the ratio dependent variable, sustainable competitive
advantage. Data was also collected on the ratio and nominal independent variables,
including the degree of an HR Consultant’s acceptance as a trusted advisor, an HR
consultant’s knowledge of strategic management, HR Architecture. QuestionPro.com
53
provided a summary of the data in a Power Point Presentation to the researcher as well as
an export of data in a format that could be easily imported into IBM SPSS Statistics 22
software.
Data Analysis
Many scholars have used regression analysis during their studies on the
relationship between human resource practices and firm performance (Khatri, 2000;
Lepak & Snell, 2002; Ojo, 2011; Kim & Lee, 2012; Beh & Loo, 2013). Fields (2009)
recommended that multiple regression analysis be used to analyze data when there is one
continuous outcome variable and a combination of categorical and continuous predictor
variables. This study has one continuous outcome variable, sustainable competitive
advantage. Additionally there were a combination of continuous and categorical survey
questions to measure the three predictor variables including the degree of an HR
consultant’s acceptance as a trusted advisor, an HR consultant’s knowledge of strategic
management and HR Architecture.
Survey data was collected from QuestionPro.com, and one of the requirements
was that each survey respondent answer all questions. This avoided the potential for
missing data. QuestionPro.com provided the data collected in a format that was
compatible with IBM’s statistical software, SPSS Statistics 22 for Windows 32-bit. The
data was uploaded and analyzed in SPSS. The multiple regression output included
descriptive statistics and correlations among the independent and dependent variables. A
model summary and ANOVA were generated to assess the fit of the regression model
(Field, 2009). determine if the independent variables predicted the dependent variable.
54
A few key considerations while analyzing data with a multiple regression include
the values of R, R2, adjusted R2, the significance level, and the Durban-Watson statistic
(Field, 2009). The value of R provides the multiple correlation coefficient between the
independent and dependent variables. The R2 value provides the variability between the
variables. The adjusted R2 value indicates whether or not the results of the analysis can
be generalized. The significance level for a multiple regression is p < .001. The purpose
of calculating the Durban-Watson statistic is to test the assumption as to whether or not it
is defensible (Field, 2009). According to Field (2009), the value should be around 2, and
if it is less than 1 or greater than 3 the researcher should be concerned. Complete
confidentiality and anonymity was obtained by using a third party provider, thus reducing
the risk of bias. The analysis for this study and the results will be provided in more detail
in Chapter 4.
Validity and Reliability
A field test and pilot test were conducted on the survey instrument used for this
study to determine the validity and reliability of the study. No questions or concerns
were raised during the field test about the face validity of the survey questions. None of
the field test participants proposed additional questions to be added to the survey. The
answers selected during the field and pilot test aligned with the expectations of the
researcher. The results demonstrated that the predictor variables could predict the
outcome variable and that there was a correlation between the variables.
To test reliability, the Cronbach’s alpha was calculated on the results from the
pilot test and yielded a value of .878. According to Field (2009), the value of Cronbach’s
alpha should be between .7 and approximately .8. A value slightly above .8 is considered
55
good reliability, demonstrating that the survey instrument for this study reflects the
construct being measured (Field, 2009).
Table 1
Pilot Test Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha Based on
Cronbach's Standardized N of
Alpha Items Items
0.878 0.878 3
Ethical Considerations
The sampling for this research was determined by a third party reputable survey
company called QuestionPro (QuestionPro.com). The researcher required a random
sample be selected, so that all small business leaders who complete surveys through
QuestionPro had an equal opportunity of being selected. In an effort to protect the
privacy of all participants and to avoid bias, the researcher did not request any other
parameters be used including the disclosure of participant names.
Voluntary participation was required, so that no person felt pressured to
participate. All participants were required to complete an informed consent prior to
taking the online survey. Once obtained from QuestionPro, all data collected was stored
securely and encrypted so that only the researcher had access. The information gathered
was only used by the researcher for purposes of this specific study and was not provided
to others outside of the study. All information obtained from QuestionPro was
password protected and saved for a maximum of seven years. The file will be
destroyed/deleted in that time frame. A backup copy will be kept on an encrypted CD, in
56
case of computer failure. This CD will be destroyed at the same time that the computer
file is destroyed. There is no risk to participants as the information collected will be kept
confidential and no names were obtained during the data collection process.
57
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS
Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to report the results of the study. The following
research questions will be answered (1) what is the relationship between the degree of an
HR consultant’s acceptance as a trusted advisor and sustainable competitive advantage
(2) what is the relationship between an HR consultant’s knowledge of strategic
management and sustainable competitive advantage, (3) what is the relationship between
HR Architecture and sustainable competitive advantage, and (4) what is the relationship
between the degree of an HR consultant’s acceptance as a trusted advisor, an HR
consultant’s knowledge of strategic management, HR Architecture, and sustainable
competitive advantage? A description of the population and sample used in the study will
be provided as well as a detailed discussion on the analysis and results for each
hypothesis.
Description of the Population and Sample
Population
Small business leaders who worked for a company legally registered on the East
Coast (in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, District of Columbia, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida) were asked to participate in the study.
Table 2 below lists each of these East Coast states with the respective number of small
businesses with employees as of 2014 (www.sba.gov/advocacy).
Table 2
58
Number of Small Businesses with Employees
# Small
State Businesses
DC 15,785
DE 17,748
FL 404,951
GA 164,681
MD 104,603
NC 163,606
PA 225,050
SC 75,238
VA 144,620
Sample size and procedures
Participants were randomly selected from a pool of QuestionPro voluntary
members. Participants were required to be a small business leader (owner or manager
who had at least one employee report to him/her) who worked for a company with less
than 500 employees. Refer to Figures 3 and 4 below, for details on the role each
participant plays in their organization and the size of the company in which they work.
40% 0.35 0.36

0.13 0.17
20%
0%
Figure 3. Role in Organization
59
50% 0.45
40%
30%
0.2
20% 0.12 0.12 0.11
10%
0%
1-50 101-250 Other
Figure 4. Number of Employees
A minimum sample size of 74 was needed for this study, see Figure 2 below, but
91 responses were actually received. Participants were required to answer all questions,
preventing the potential for missing data. No data transformations were required with the
data collected.
60
Figure 2. G*Power Results
Demographics
Demographic information was obtained from the sample population with survey
questions including gender, level of education, business type, years of service with
company, and industry. 58% of the respondents were female and 42% were male. A
majority of the survey participants had at least a bachelor’s degree, 38% held a graduate
degree, 38% held a bachelor’s degree, 12% held a certification, and the remaining 13%
only had a high school diploma. Most of the respondents worked for either a corporation
(36%) or a sole-proprietor (36%), while the rest worked for a limited liability corporation
(14%), and non-profit organization (12%) or a business type not listed (2%). A
significant number of the respondents worked for their current employer for more than 10
years (54%) with only a small portion having worked there for less than a year (4%).
Those respondents working for their company for 5-10 years included 22% of the sample
61
leaving 20% to having worked for their company for more than a year but less than five
years. Figure 8 provides the details for the industry in which the participants conduct
business.
40% 0.35 0.36

30%
20% 0.07 0.11
10% 0.06 0.05
0%
Figure 5. Industry
Summary of Results
A multiple regression was performed to analyze the relationship between the
predictor and outcome variables. Survey respondents were asked to answer questions
relating to the predictor and outcome variables. Respondents were asked to answer the
questions on a scale of 1-10 with zero being not applicable. Each survey question is
listed below in Table 2 and assigned a variable name. Hypotheses were tested to answer
four research questions related to this study, the results are presented below.
Table 3
Legend of Variable Names and Survey Questions
62
Variable
Name Survey Question
V16 To what degree do you believe an HR consultant could be a trusted advisor?
V17 If you were to hire an HR consultant as a trusted advisor, how likely are you to be open
to feedback and suggestions from the HR consultant on how to best resolve issues?
If you were to hire an HR consultant as a trusted advisor, how likely are you to be open
V18 to the feedback and suggestions from the HR consultant when making business
decisions?
How important is it for an HR consultant to understand certain strategic elements of the
V19
firm such as business goals, values and the firm's capabilities?
V20 industry in which the company competes such as the competition, suppliers, and
customers?
V21 How important is it that a trusted advisor has good listening skills?
How important is it that a trusted advisor be able to provide guidance in the
V22
development of business strategy?
How important is it for a trusted advisor to analyze and bring to your attention strategic
V23
issues?
How important is it for a trusted advisor to assist with formulating a strategy based
V24
upon organizational HR resources and capabilities?
To what degree do you feel you can trust an outside HR consultant to help the company
V25
achieve competitive advantage?
To what extent do you agree that you could have used expertise from an HR consultant
V26
with decisions that involved employee matters?
To what extent do you agree that a business strategy should strengthen market position
V29
while enabling a firm to gain competitive advantage?
To what extent do you agree that your firm currently has a set of defined strategic
V30
goals?
To what extent do you agree that your firm makes HR decisions based on company
V31
defined strategic goals?
To what extent do you agree that identifying and assessing a firm's resources and
V33
capabilities ar the foundation of a competitive strategy?
A key issue related to the sustainability of a competitive advantage, derived from
V34 resources and capabilities, is: can the competition replicate a firm's resources and
capabilities and imitate its strategy. To what extent do you agree?
To what degree do you feel that the employees of your firm possess capabilities that are
V35
unique and result in differentation or cost advantage?
To what extent do you agree that a strategy relating specifically to human resources can
V36
enable the company to establish and sustain competitive advantage?
How important is it that HR practices for recruiting, retention, compensation, and
V37
training are aligned with the competitive strategy of the organization?
To what extent do you agree that a firm should adopt a set of HR policies, procedures,
V38
and practices as a key component to establish and sustain competitive advantage?
V40 Does your organization have a recruiting strategy?
Does your organization have an onboarding strategy, a structured way of hiring and
V41
training newly hired employees?
Does your organization have a training and development strategy for employees after
V42
their initial onboarding period?
V43 Does your organization have a compensation and benefit strategy?
Does your organization have a current employee handbook that was updated within the
V44
past year?
V45 Does your organization have a policy and procedure manual for HR related practices?
63
Demographics
A multiple regression was used to analyze the relationship between the
demographic information and each variable in the conceptual framework. The survey
participants were asked to provide their role in the organization, level of education,
gender, state the business was legally registered, type of business, number of years the
business is in operation in which they work, industry, number of employees, and number
of full time and part time HR staff in the company. The results of the analysis showed
that type of business and number of full time and part time HR staff employed by the
company had the most significant relationship with each of the variables in the
conceptual framework.
Research Question 1
The question, what is the relationship between the degree of an HR consultant’s
acceptance as a trusted advisor and sustainable competitive advantage, was answered by
testing the following hypothesis:
H01: There is no relationship between the degree of an HR consultant’s

acceptance as a trusted advisor and sustainable competitive advantage.
HA1: There is a relationship between the degree of an HR consultant’s acceptance

as a trusted advisor and sustainable competitive advantage.
The null hypothesis was rejected, because a statistically significant, positive relationship
was found between the predictor and outcome variables. Two variables, V16 and V26,
were found to have the most significant positive impact on the outcome variable.
64
Research Question 2
The question, what is the relationship between an HR consultant’s knowledge of
strategic management and sustainable competitive advantage, was answered by testing
the following hypothesis:
H02: There is no relationship between an HR consultant’s knowledge of strategic

management and sustainable competitive advantage.
HA2: There is a relationship between an HR consultant’s knowledge of strategic

was found between the predictor and outcome variables. Two variables, V33 and V35,
were found to have the most significant positive impact on the outcome variable.
Research Question 3
The question, what is the relationship between HR architecture and sustainable
competitive advantage, was answered by testing the following hypothesis:
H03: There is no relationship between HR architecture and sustainable

HA3: There is a relationship between HR architecture and sustainable competitive

advantage.
was found between the predictor and outcome variables. Variable 37 was found to have
the most significant positive impact on the outcome variable.
65
Research Question 4
HR Architecture, and sustainable competitive advantage was answered by testing the
following hypothesis:

acceptance as a trusted advisor, an HR consultant’s knowledge of strategic
management, HR Architecture, and sustainable competitive advantage.

as a trusted advisor, an HR consultant’s knowledge of strategic management, HR
Architecture, and sustainable competitive advantage.
was found between the predictor and outcome variables. Variable 24, 35, and 37 had the
highest standardized beta value, indicating the most statistically significant, positive
relationship with the dependent variable sustainable competitive advantage.
The detailed analysis and results are presented in the next section. The following
section includes all the tables and figures relating to the descriptive and inferential
statistics for each of the research questions and the corresponding hypotheses tests and
sub-hypotheses tests. Tests for outliers and assumptions are also presented for each
hypothesis.
Details of Analysis and Results
This section presents the analysis that was performed, and the data that was
analyzed using multiple regression. An overview of the key tests and expected results
associated with a multiple aggression are provided first. A multiple regression is used to
study the relationship between multiple categorical and continuous predictor variables
66
and one outcome variable (Field, 2009). There are several different models used to study
the relationship between the predictor and outcome variables including descriptive
statistics, correlations table, collinearity diagnostics, coefficients table, a model summary,
an ANOVA, a coefficients table, a casewise diagnostics, and residual statistics.
Additionally assumptions tests were performed and the results are presented in the
Histogram, Normal P-P Plot of Regression Standardized Residual and Scatterplot charts.
Lastly, the results of the hypotheses are presented.
Descriptive Statistics, Correlations, and Coefficients
The purpose of descriptive statistics is to present the mean and standard deviation
for each variable being analyzed (Field, 2009). The correlation output shows Pearson’s
correlation coefficient (value of r), the one-tailed significance, and the number of cases
being studied. This helps with understanding the relationship between the independent
and dependent variables. It is important that no two predictors have a significant
relationship with each other. Multicollinearity is the term used to describe when a
significant relationship between two predictor variables exists. A value of r > .9
demonstrates that multicollinearity exists. The coefficients table can also be used to study
collinearity. A VIF larger than 10 or if the average VIF is greater than 1, a researcher
should be concerned. Lastly, if the tolerance statistic in the coefficients table is below .1,
then there could be significant problems. The collinearity table can be used to further
study the collinearity of the predictor variables. In addition to understanding the
relationship between the variables, it is important to assess whether or not the model
being used successfully predicts the outcome (Field, 2009).
67
The coefficients table enables the researcher to determine the type of relationship
that exists between the predictor and outcome variables, either positive or negative (Field,
2009). A value of less than .05 in the Sig column indicates a large contribution.
Additionally, the larger the standardized beta value the more important the predictor
variable is to the model (Field, 2009).
Model Summary and ANOVA
The model summary indicates whether or not the independent variables are
successful in predicting the dependent or outcome variable (Field, 2009). A Durbin
Watson statistic in the model summary that is between 1 and 3, a value closest to 2 is the
preferred value, demonstrates that the independent variables are successful in predicting
the outcome variable (Field, 2009). R, R2, and the adjusted R2 provide the multiple
correlation coefficient between the independent and dependent variables, the variability
in the outcome, and the generalizability of the model respectively (Field, 2009). Ideally,
the value of R2 and the adjusted R2 should be similar (Field, 2009). ANOVA tells
whether the model is better at predicting the outcome than the mean (Field, 2009). A
value of less than .05 in the Sig column indicates that the model is a good fit (Field,
2009). The next step in a multiple regression is to analyze the individual contributions
that each variable makes to the regression.
Diagnostics for Outliers
Casewise diagnostics are used to review extreme cases in the data (Field, 2009).
The casewise diagnostics chart lists any case or respondent that has a standardized
residual absolute value above or below 2, and generally no more than 5% of the sample
size should be reported. Ideally, no more than 1% of the sample should have an absolute
68
value above 2.5. A value in excess of 3 is a good indicator of outliers (Field, 2009).
With a sample size of 91, fewer than five cases (respondents) should be listed in the
casewise diagnostics with a standardized residual absolute value greater than 2, (Field,
2009). The residual statistics table should be used to further analyze cases. Field (2009)
recommends a Cook’s value of less than 1 and a Mahalanobis distance value of less than
15 for small samples (usually less than 100). Anything above these values could indicate
outliers exist (Field, 2009).
Assumptions Tests – Linearity, Homoscedasticity, and Normality
The Histogram chart can also be used to indicate outliers in the data. If outliers
are present, a boxplot can be used to easily determine the outliers. Outliers can be left
alone, removed from the sample, or transformed. As Field (2009) pointed out, there is
disagreement among researchers as the value of removing or transforming outliers. This
can be seen as manipulating the data, producing a more negative impact than leaving the
outliers in the sample. A Histogram should be in a bell-shaped curve, and any line
significantly outside of the curve can be indicative of outliers. A shape other than a bell-
shaped curve can mean that the data does not meet the test for normality of residuals.
The Normal P-P Plot charts can also be used to test the normality of residuals. In a
Normal P-P Plot chart, when all data is on or very close to the linear line the data are
considered to meet the test of normality (Field, 2009). In addition to testing normality, a
Scatterplot should be used to test the assumptions of homoscedasticity, and linearity.
A Scatterplot provides valuable information when checking assumptions. Points
that are randomly and evenly located in the chart demonstrates linearity and
homoscedasticity. When the points form a funnel, then the assumption of
69
homoscedasticity is not met. If the data is curvilinear then the assumption of linearity is
not met. When assumptions are not met the validity of the model may be put into
question (Field, 2009).
The data collected for this study was received by QuestionPro.com in a format
compatible with SPSS. The data was entered into SPSS and analyzed for each research
question. An output file was created for each research question including descriptive
statistics, correlations table, coefficients table, a model summary, an ANOVA, casewise
diagnostics, and residual statistics. The histogram, Normal P-P Plot Regression The
model, tables, and charts are presented below, with a detailed explanation of the results.
Listed below, in Table 2 are all of the survey questions assigned with a variable name
that was used for a clean and concise presentation of the results. Respondents were asked
to answer the questions on a scale of 1-10 with zero being not applicable.
Table 3
Legend of Variable Names and Survey Questions
70
Variable
decisions?
V19
customers?
V22
V23
issues?
V24
V25
V26
To what extent do you agree that a business strategy should strengthen market position
V29
while enabling a firm to gain competitive advantage?
To what extent do you agree that your firm currently has a set of defined strategic
V30
goals?
To what extent do you agree that your firm makes HR decisions based on company
V31
defined strategic goals?
To what extent do you agree that identifying and assessing a firm's resources and
V33
capabilities ar the foundation of a competitive strategy?
A key issue related to the sustainability of a competitive advantage, derived from
V34 resources and capabilities, is: can the competition replicate a firm's resources and
To what degree do you feel that the employees of your firm possess capabilities that are
V35
unique and result in differentation or cost advantage?
To what extent do you agree that a strategy relating specifically to human resources can
V36
enable the company to establish and sustain competitive advantage?
V37
V38
and practices as a key component to establish and sustain competitive advantage?
V41
training newly hired employees?
V42
their initial onboarding period?
Does your organization have a current employee handbook that was updated within the
V44
past year?
71
Demographic Analysis
The demographic information obtained, refer to Table 4 below presenting the
survey questions, was analyzed to assist scholars in better understanding the relationship
between the sample population and each of the variables in the conceptual framework.
The results can also be used by HR Consultants to better understand the group of
individuals who are most open to utilization of HR consultant services.
Table 4
Demographic Survey Questions
Name Survey Question Answer Choices

Owner/Executive, Director/Manager,
Role in Organization Describe your role in the organization
HR Professional, or Other
Graduate Degree, Bachelor's Degree,
Level of Education What is your highest level of education?
Certification, or Highschool
Gender What is your gender? Female or Male
Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania,
Business Registered State What state is your company registered for business?
Virginia, or Other
Incorporated, Limited Liability
Type of Business What type of business is your company? Company, Sole Proprietor/Partnership,
Non-profit, or Other
Less than one year, 1-5 years, 5-10
Years in Operation How long has your company been in business?
years, or 10+ years
What industry/market does your company perform Service, Manufacturing,
Industry
business activities? Food/Beverage, Healthcare, or Other
1-50, 51-100, 101-250, 251-500, more
# Employees How many employees does your organization have?
than 500
How many employees (full time and part time) are
Less than full time equivalent, 1-3, 4-6,
HR Staff devoted to HR practices (excluding those who process
or 6+
payroll) within your company?
HR Consultant’s Acceptance as Trusted Advisor
The demographic information was used as independent variables to study the
relationship with the dependent variable, HR consultant’s acceptance as trusted advisor
(V25- to what degree do you feel that you can trust an outside HR consultant to help the
company achieve competitive advantage?), depicted in Figure 6.
72
HR Consultant's
Demographic Info Acceptance as
Trusted Advisor
Figure 6. Conceptual Framework – Demographic Info. (IV) and Trusted Advisor (DV)
The analysis performed on the descriptive statistics, correlations, and coefficients
tables (presented below in Tables 5 through 7) yielded a Pearson correlation value less
than .9 for all of the variables. This indicates that no multicollinearity exists among the
predictor variables. A value of greater than 10 for the VIF was not found, and the
Tolerance for all variables was higher than .1. This confirms that there are no serious
problems with the data collected and analyzed for this research question (Field, 2009).
Type of Business and HR staff were found to have the most significant relationship with
the dependent variable, because they had the highest standard coefficients beta.
Table 5
Descriptive Statistics - Demographic Info. (IV) and Trusted Advisor (IV)

Std.
Mean Deviation N
DV HR
8.63 1.981 91
Consultant
Role In
1.98 .977 91
Organization
Level of
1.96 1.021 91
Education
Gender 1.42 .496 91
Business
3.86 1.355 91
Registered State
Type of
2.22 1.083 91
Business
Years in
3.25 .926 91
Operation
Industry 4.67 1.491 91
# Employees 2.36 1.465 91
HR Staff 2.32 1.094 91
73
Table 6
Correlations - Demographic Info. (IV) and Trusted Advisor (IV)

Business
DV HR Role In Level of Type of Years in #
Gender Registered Industry HR Staff
Consultant Organization Education Business Operation Employees
State
DV HR
1.000 .030 -.085 .025 -.177 .163 -.118 -.174 .174 .271
Consultant
Role In
.030 1.000 .166 -.027 .115 -.100 .104 -.058 .215 .142
Organization
Level of
-.085 .166 1.000 -.139 .212 .139 -.094 .005 -.249 -.146
Education
Gender .025 -.027 -.139 1.000 -.241 -.235 .082 .008 .233 .100
Business
Registered -.177 .115 .212 -.241 1.000 -.024 -.077 .064 -.170 -.201
Pearson State
Correlation
Type of
.163 -.100 .139 -.235 -.024 1.000 -.045 .018 -.233 -.275
Business
Years in
-.118 .104 -.094 .082 -.077 -.045 1.000 .125 .415 .314
Operation
Industry -.174 -.058 .005 .008 .064 .018 .125 1.000 -.082 -.180
# Employees .174 .215 -.249 .233 -.170 -.233 .415 -.082 1.000 .593
HR Staff .271 .142 -.146 .100 -.201 -.275 .314 -.180 .593 1.000
N=91
Table 7
Coefficients - Demographic Info. (IV) and Trusted Advisor (IV)

Unstandardized Standardized 95.0% Confidence
Coefficients Coefficients Interval for B Correlations Collinearity Statistics
Lower Upper
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Bound Bound Zero-order Partial Part Tolerance VIF
DV HR
8.483 1.580 5.371 .000 5.341 11.626
Consultant
Role In
.067 .213 .033 .315 .754 -.356 .490 .030 .035 .031 .880 1.136
Organization
Level of
-.111 .206 -.057 -.539 .591 -.522 .299 -.085 -.060 -.053 .856 1.169
Education
Gender .108 .427 .027 .253 .801 -.741 .957 .025 .028 .025 .848 1.179
Business
1 Registered -.130 .156 -.089 -.832 .408 -.439 .180 -.177 -.092 -.082 .853 1.172
State
Type of
.514 .196 .281 2.624 .010 .124 .904 .163 .280 .258 .843 1.187
Business
Years in
-.554 .238 -.259 -2.332 .022 -1.028 -.081 -.118 -.251 -.229 .783 1.277
Operation
Industry -.096 .136 -.072 -.707 .481 -.367 .174 -.174 -.078 -.070 .925 1.082
# Employees .148 .184 .109 .803 .424 -.218 .514 .174 .089 .079 .522 1.915
HR Staff .576 .234 .318 2.464 .016 .111 1.041 .271 .264 .242 .580 1.724
74
The model summary and ANOVA tables were analyzed to determine if the model
was successful in predicting the outcome. The model yielded a Durbin Watson value of
1.901, which according to Field (2009) is good. The value of R2 and adjusted R2 were
.216 and .129, see Table 8, which should be more similar to increase the confidence of
the predictability (Field, 2009). Lastly, since the Sig was less than .05 in the ANOVA,
see Table 9 it appears that the chosen model can confidently predict the outcome because
a Sig less than .05 indicates a relationship between the predictor and outcome variable
(Field, 2009).
Table 8
Model Summary - Demographic Info. (IV) and Trusted Advisor (IV)
Change Statistics
Model Adjusted R Std. Error of R Square Sig. F Durbin-
R R Square Square the Estimate Change F Change df1 df2 Change Watson
a
1 .465 .216 .129 1.849 .216 2.483 9 81 .015 1.901
Table 9
ANOVA - Demographic Info. (IV) and Trusted Advisor (IV)
Sum of Mean
Model Squares df Square F Sig.
Regression 76.405 9 8.489 2.483 .015
b
1 Residual 276.892 81 3.418

Total 353.297 90
For this research question, there are four cases with absolute values greater than
2.0 and no cases with an absolute value greater than 2.5, this is a good indication that
75
there are no outliers. A value greater than 3.0 would be an indication that outliers exist,
but for this analysis all values are under 3.0 (Field, 2009).
Table 10
Casewise Diagnostics - Demographic Info. (IV) and Trusted Advisor (IV)
HR Predicted
Case Number
Std. Residual Consultant Value Residual
2 -2.234 6 10.13 -4.131
64 -2.414 5 9.46 -4.463
75 -2.107 4 7.90 -3.895
83 -2.435 3 7.50 -4.502
The Cook’s Distance for this analysis has a maximum value of .114 which is less than 1,
reducing the possibility of outliers. The Mahalanobis Distance maximum value is above
the recommended 15; however, the average is 8.901 (Field, 2009).
Table 11
Residuals Statistics - Demographic Info. (IV) and Trusted Advisor (DV)

Std.
Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
Predicted Value 6.34 11.21 8.63 .921
Std. Predicted
-2.482 2.799 .000 1.000
Value
Standard Error
of Predicted .419 .872 .604 .102
Value
Adjusted
6.63 11.25 8.63 .951
Predicted Value
Residual -4.502 3.672 .000 1.754
Std. Residual -2.435 1.986 .000 .949
Stud. Residual -2.579 2.050 -.002 1.003
Deleted
-5.096 3.912 -.007 1.964
Residual
Stud. Deleted
-2.676 2.092 -.004 1.016
Residual
Mahal. Distance 3.625 19.035 8.901 3.350
Cook's Distance .000 .114 .012 .019
Centered
.040 .211 .099 .037
Leverage Value
N=91
76
The Histogram, Normal P-P Plot of Regression Standardized, and the Scatterplot
are presented in Figures 7 through 8. The Histogram has a bell-shaped curve, but does
show that there may be a few outliers with one line slightly higher than the curve. The
data in the Normal P-P Plot chart, fluctuates away from the line only slightly suggesting
minimally that the data is non-normal. The points on the Scatterplot are evenly and
randomly distributed on the indicating linearity and homoscedasticity exists.
Figure 7. Histogram Figure 8. Normal P-P Plot
Figure 9. Scatterplot
77
HR Consultant’s knowledge of Strategic Management
relationship with the dependent variable, HR consultant’s knowledge of strategic
management (V34- A key issue related to the sustainability of a competitive advantage,
derived from resources and capabilities, is: can the competition replicate a firm’s
resources and capabilities and imitate its strategy. To what extent do you agree?),
depicted in Figure 10.
HR Consultant's
Knowledge of
Demographic Info
Strategic
Management
Figure 10. Conceptual Framework – Demographic Info. (IV) and Knowledge of

Strategic Management (DV)
tables (presented below in Tables 12-14) yielded a Pearson correlation value less than .9
for all of the variables. This indicates that no multicollinearity exists among the predictor
variables. A value of greater than 10 for the VIF was not found, and the Tolerance for all
variables was higher than .1. This confirms that there are no serious problems with the
data collected and analyzed for this research question (Field, 2009). Type of Business
and HR staff were found to have the most significant relationship with the dependent
variable, because they had the highest standard coefficients beta.
Table 12
78
Descriptive Statistics - Demographic Info. (IV) and Knowledge of Strategic Management
(DV)
Mean Std. Deviation N

DV - Strategic
Management 8.85 1.837 91
Role In
1.98 .977 91
Organization
Level of
1.96 1.021 91
Education
Gender 1.42 .496 91
Business
Registered 3.86 1.355 91
State
Type of
2.22 1.083 91
Business
Years in
3.25 .926 91
Operation
Industry 4.67 1.491 91
# Employees 2.36 1.465 91
HR Staff 2.32 1.094 91
Table 13
Correlations - Demographic Info. (IV) and Knowledge of Strategic Management (DV)

Business
DV - Strategic Role In Level of Type of Years in #
Gender Registered Industry HR Staff
Management Organization Education Business Operation Employees
State
DV -
Strategic 1.000 -.020 -.092 -.051 -.129 .140 -.166 -.031 -.004 .074
Management
Role In
-.020 1.000 .166 -.027 .115 -.100 .104 -.058 .215 .142
Organization
Level of
-.092 .166 1.000 -.139 .212 .139 -.094 .005 -.249 -.146
Education
Gender -.051 -.027 -.139 1.000 -.241 -.235 .082 .008 .233 .100
Pearson Business
Correlation Registered -.129 .115 .212 -.241 1.000 -.024 -.077 .064 -.170 -.201
State
Type of
.140 -.100 .139 -.235 -.024 1.000 -.045 .018 -.233 -.275
Business
Years in
-.166 .104 -.094 .082 -.077 -.045 1.000 .125 .415 .314
Operation
Industry -.031 -.058 .005 .008 .064 .018 .125 1.000 -.082 -.180
# Employees -.004 .215 -.249 .233 -.170 -.233 .415 -.082 1.000 .593
HR Staff .074 .142 -.146 .100 -.201 -.275 .314 -.180 .593 1.000
N=91
Table 14
Coefficients - Demographic Info. (IV) and Knowledge of Strategic Management (DV)
79
Lower Upper
1 DV - Strategic
Management 9.859 1.570 6.280 .000 6.736 12.983
Role In
.053 .211 .028 .252 .801 -.367 .474 -.020 .028 .027 .880 1.136
Organization
Level of
-.187 .205 -.104 -.914 .363 -.596 .221 -.092 -.101 -.096 .856 1.169
Education
Gender -.166 .424 -.045 -.392 .696 -1.010 .677 -.051 -.044 -.041 .848 1.179
Business
Registered -.141 .155 -.104 -.909 .366 -.449 .167 -.129 -.100 -.096 .853 1.172
State
Type of
.304 .195 .179 1.560 .123 -.084 .692 .140 .171 .164 .843 1.187
Business
Years in
-.460 .236 -.232 -1.944 .055 -.930 .011 -.166 -.211 -.205 .783 1.277
Operation
Industry .042 .135 .034 .313 .755 -.227 .311 -.031 .035 .033 .925 1.082
# Employees
-.003 .183 -.002 -.015 .988 -.367 .361 -.004 -.002 -.002 .522 1.915
HR Staff .283 .232 .168 1.216 .227 -.180 .745 .074 .134 .128 .580 1.724
similar at .100 and .000, see Table 15, which supports the predictability of the model
(Field, 2009). Lastly, the Sig was more than .05 in the ANOVA, see Table 16,
conflicting the results of the R2 and adjusted R2 indicating there is doubt as to whether the
chosen model can confidently predict the outcome (Field, 2009).
Table 15
Model Summary - Demographic Info. (IV) and Knowledge of Strategic Management (DV)
Std. Error Change Statistics

Adjusted R of the R Square Sig. F Durbin-
Model R R Square Square Estimate Change F Change df1 df2 Change Watson
1 .316
a
.100 .000 1.838 .100 .998 9 81 .449 2.171
Table 16
ANOVA - Demographic Info. (IV) and Knowledge of Strategic Management (DV)
Sum of Mean
1 Regression 30.330 9 3.370 .998 .449
b
Residual 273.516 81 3.377

Total 303.846 90
80
For this research question, there are two cases with absolute values greater than
2.0 and both have an absolute value greater than 2.5, this is a good indication that there
are outliers. The Cook’s Distance for this analysis has a maximum value of .147 which is
less than 1, reducing the possibility of outliers. The Mahalanobis Distance maximum
value is above the recommended 15; however, the average is 8.901 (Field, 2009).
Table 17
Casewise Diagnostics - Demographic Info. (IV) and Knowledge of Strategic Management

(DV)
A key issue
related to the
sustainability Predicted
Case Number Std. Residual of a com Value Residual
37 -3.818 1 8.02 -7.017
81 -3.218 4 9.91 -5.914
Table 18
Residuals Statistics - Demographic Info. (IV) and Knowledge of Strategic Management

(DV)
81
Std.
Predicted
7.50 10.24 8.85 .581
Value
Std. Predicted
-2.317 2.400 .000 1.000
Value
Standard Error
of Predicted .416 .867 .601 .102
Value
Adjusted
Predicted 7.32 10.48 8.85 .611
Value
Residual -7.017 2.933 .000 1.743
Std. Residual -3.818 1.596 .000 .949
Stud. Residual -3.990 1.669 -.001 1.002
Deleted
-7.663 3.251 -.002 1.947
Residual
Stud. Deleted
-4.424 1.688 -.009 1.033
Residual
Mahal.
3.625 19.035 8.901 3.350
Distance
Cook's
.000 .147 .012 .021
Distance
Centered
Leverage .040 .211 .099 .037
Value
N=91
show that there may be a few outliers with a few lines higher than the curve. The data in
the Normal P-P Plot chart, fluctuates away from the line suggesting the data may be non-
normal. The points on the Scatterplot are evenly and randomly distributed on the
indicating linearity and homoscedasticity exists.
82
HR Architecture
relationship with the dependent variable, HR architecture (V38- to what extent do you
agree that a firm should adopt a set of HR policies, procedures, and practices as a key
component to establish and sustain competitive advantage?), depicted in Figure 14.
83
Demographic Info HR Architecture
Figure 14. Conceptual Framework – Demographic Info. (IV) and HR Architecture (DV)
data collected and analyzed for this research question (Field, 2009). Type of Business and
HR staff were found to have the most significant relationship with the dependent
Table 19
Descriptive Statistics - Demographic Info. (IV) and HR Architecture (DV)
Std.
Mean Deviation N
DV - HR
8.90 2.231 91
Architecture
Role In
1.98 .977 91
Organization
Level of
1.96 1.021 91
Education
Gender 1.42 .496 91
Business
State
Type of
2.22 1.083 91
Business
Years in
3.25 .926 91
Operation
Industry 4.67 1.491 91
# Employees 2.36 1.465 91
HR Staff 2.32 1.094 91
84
Table 20
Correlations - Demographic Info. (IV) and HR Architecture (DV)

DV - HR Role In Level of Gender Business Type of Years in Industry # HR Staff
Architecture Organization Education Registered Business Operation Employees
State
DV - HR
1.000 .030 -.085 -.083 -.144 .165 -.160 -.184 .147 .268
Architecture
Role In
.030 1.000 .166 -.027 .115 -.100 .104 -.058 .215 .142
Organization
Level of
-.085 .166 1.000 -.139 .212 .139 -.094 .005 -.249 -.146
Education
Gender -.083 -.027 -.139 1.000 -.241 -.235 .082 .008 .233 .100
Business
Pearson Registered -.144 .115 .212 -.241 1.000 -.024 -.077 .064 -.170 -.201
Correlation State
Type of
.165 -.100 .139 -.235 -.024 1.000 -.045 .018 -.233 -.275
Business
Years in
-.160 .104 -.094 .082 -.077 -.045 1.000 .125 .415 .314
Operation
Industry -.184 -.058 .005 .008 .064 .018 .125 1.000 -.082 -.180
# Employees .147 .215 -.249 .233 -.170 -.233 .415 -.082 1.000 .593
HR Staff .268 .142 -.146 .100 -.201 -.275 .314 -.180 .593 1.000
N=91
Table 21
Coefficients - Demographic Info. (IV) and HR Architecture (DV)

Standardiz
ed
Unstandardized Coefficient 95.0% Confidence
Coefficients s Interval for B Correlations Collinearity Statistics
Lower Upper
1 DV - HR
9.792 1.757 5.573 .000 6.296 13.288
Architecture
Role In
.070 .236 .031 .298 .766 -.400 .541 .030 .033 .029 .880 1.136
Organization
Level of
-.159 .230 -.073 -.694 .490 -.616 .297 -.085 -.077 -.067 .856 1.169
Education
Gender -.375 .475 -.083 -.790 .432 -1.319 .570 -.083 -.087 -.077 .848 1.179
Business
-.130 .173 -.079 -.750 .455 -.475 .215 -.144 -.083 -.073 .853 1.172
Registered State
Type of Business .540 .218 .262 2.479 .015 .107 .974 .165 .266 .241 .843 1.187
Years in
-.719 .265 -.298 -2.717 .008 -1.245 -.193 -.160 -.289 -.264 .783 1.277
Operation
Industry -.111 .151 -.074 -.732 .466 -.412 .190 -.184 -.081 -.071 .925 1.082
# Employees .167 .205 .110 .817 .416 -.240 .575 .147 .090 .079 .522 1.915
HR Staff .679 .260 .333 2.610 .011 .161 1.196 .268 .279 .254 .580 1.724
85
the predictability (Field, 2009). Lastly, since the Sig was less than .05 in the ANOVA,
see Table 23 it appears that the chosen model can confidently predict the outcome
because a Sig less than .05 indicates a relationship between the predictor and outcome
variable (Field, 2009).
Table 22
Model Summary - Demographic Info. (IV) and HR Architecture (DV)

Std.
Error of Change Statistics
Adjusted R the R Square Sig. F Durbin-
Model R R Square Square Estimat Change F Change df1 df2 Change Watson
1 .485
a
.235 .150 2.057 .235 2.771 9 81 .007 2.363
Table 23
ANOVA - Demographic Info. (IV) and HR Architecture (DV)
Sum of Mean
1 Regression 105.477 9 11.720 2.771 .007
b
Residual 342.633 81 4.230

Total 448.110 90
For this research question, there are four cases with absolute values greater than
2.0 and two cases with an absolute value greater than 2.5, this indicates there may be
outliers (Field, 2009). Two of the cases have a value greater than 3.0, increasing the
likelihood of outliers. The Cook’s Distance for this analysis has a maximum value of
.100 which is less than 1, reducing the possibility of outliers. The Mahalanobis Distance
maximum value is above the recommended 15; however, the average is 8.901 (Field,
2009). Boxplots could be run to further analyze the outliers; however, the researcher
decided not to run the boxplot test on the demographic data.
Table 24
86
Casewise Diagnostics - Demographic Info. (IV) and HR Architecture (DV)
Case DV - HR Predicted Residua

Number Std. Residual Architecture Value l
37 -3.113 1 7.40 -6.402
64 -2.050 6 10.22 -4.216
75 -2.089 4 8.30 -4.296
83 -3.275 1 7.74 -6.736
Table 25
Residuals Statistics - Demographic Info. (IV) and HR Architecture (DV)

Std.
Predicted
5.99 11.56 8.90 1.083
Value
Std.
Predicted -2.688 2.459 .000 1.000
Value
Standard
Error of
.466 .970 .672 .114
Predicted
Value
Adjusted
Predicted 6.48 11.70 8.92 1.118
Value
Residual -6.736 2.960 .000 1.951
Std.
-3.275 1.439 .000 .949
Residual
Stud.
-3.413 1.490 -.003 1.003
Residual
Deleted
-7.315 3.172 -.015 2.181
Residual
Stud.
Deleted -3.666 1.501 -.011 1.026
Residual
Mahal.
3.625 19.035 8.901 3.350
Distance
Cook's
.000 .100 .012 .020
Distance
Centered
Leverage .040 .211 .099 .037
Value
N=91
87
show that there may be a few outliers with a few lines higher than the curve. The data in
the Normal P-P Plot chart, fluctuates away from the line suggesting that the data may be
non-normal. The points on the Scatterplot are evenly and randomly distributed on the
indicating linearity and homoscedasticity exists.
88
relationship with the dependent variable, sustainable competitive advantage (V36- to
what extent do you agree that a strategy relating specifically to human resources can
enable the company to establish and sustain competitive advantage?), depicted in Figure
18.
Sustainable
Demographic Info Competitive
Advantage
Figure 20. Conceptual Framework – Demographic Info. (IV) and Sustainable

Competitive Advantage (DV)
tables (presented below in Tables 26 - 28) yielded a Pearson correlation value less than .9
89
data collected and analyzed for this research question (Field, 2009). Type of Business and
HR staff were found to have the most significant relationship with the dependent
Table 26
Descriptive Statistics - Demographic Info. (IV) and Sustainable Competitive Advantage

(DV)

DV -
Sustainable
Competitive 8.56 2.391 91
Advantage
Role In
Organization 1.98 .977 91
Level of
1.96 1.021 91
Education
Gender 1.42 .496 91
Business
State
Type of
2.22 1.083 91
Business
Years in
3.25 .926 91
Operation
Industry 4.67 1.491 91
# Employees 2.36 1.465 91
HR Staff 2.32 1.094 91
Table 27
Correlations - Demographic Info. (IV) and Sustainable Competitive Advantage (DV)
90
DV -
Sustainable
Competitive 1.000 .053 -.154 -.003 -.119 .093 -.200 -.287 .144 .254
Advantage
Role In
.053 1.000 .166 -.027 .115 -.100 .104 -.058 .215 .142
Organization
Level of
-.154 .166 1.000 -.139 .212 .139 -.094 .005 -.249 -.146
Education
Gender -.003 -.027 -.139 1.000 -.241 -.235 .082 .008 .233 .100
Pearson Business
Correlation Registered -.119 .115 .212 -.241 1.000 -.024 -.077 .064 -.170 -.201
State
Type of
.093 -.100 .139 -.235 -.024 1.000 -.045 .018 -.233 -.275
Business
Years in
-.200 .104 -.094 .082 -.077 -.045 1.000 .125 .415 .314
Operation
Industry -.287 -.058 .005 .008 .064 .018 .125 1.000 -.082 -.180
# Employees
.144 .215 -.249 .233 -.170 -.233 .415 -.082 1.000 .593
HR Staff .254 .142 -.146 .100 -.201 -.275 .314 -.180 .593 1.000
N=91
Table 28
Coefficients - Demographic Info. (IV) and Sustainable Competitive Advantage (DV)
Standardized 95.0% Confidence

Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients Interval for B Correlations Collinearity Statistics
Lower Upper
1 DV -
Sustainable
10.381 1.862 5.576 .000 6.677 14.085
Competitive
Advantage
Role In
.163 .251 .067 .651 .517 -.335 .662 .053 .072 .063 .880 1.136
Organization
Level of
-.361 .243 -.154 -1.484 .142 -.845 .123 -.154 -.163 -.143 .856 1.169
Education
Gender -.002 .503 .000 -.004 .997 -1.003 .999 -.003 .000 .000 .848 1.179
Business
Registered -.052 .184 -.029 -.283 .778 -.417 .313 -.119 -.031 -.027 .853 1.172
State
Type of
.461 .231 .209 1.995 .049 .001 .920 .093 .216 .192 .843 1.187
Business
Years in
-.814 .280 -.315 -2.906 .005 -1.372 -.257 -.200 -.307 -.279 .783 1.277
Operation
Industry -.298 .160 -.186 -1.860 .067 -.617 .021 -.287 -.202 -.179 .925 1.082
# Employees .126 .217 .077 .580 .563 -.306 .558 .144 .064 .056 .522 1.915
HR Staff .641 .276 .293 2.325 .023 .092 1.189 .254 .250 .223 .580 1.724
the predictability. Lastly, since the Sig was less than .05 in the ANOVA, see Table 30 it
appears that the chosen model can confidently predict the outcome because a Sig less
91
than .05 indicates a relationship between the predictor and outcome variable (Field,
2009).
Table 29
Model Summary - Demographic Info. (IV) and Sustainable Competitive Advantage (DV)
Change Statistics
Adjusted R Std. Error of the R Square Sig. F Durbin-
1 .502
a
.252 .169 2.179 .252 3.038 9 81 .004 2.243
Table 30
ANOVA - Demographic Info. (IV) and Sustainable Competitive Advantage (DV)
Sum of
Model Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 129.811 9 14.423 3.038 .004
b
Residual 384.607 81 4.748

Total 514.418 90
For this research question, there are three cases with absolute values greater than
2.0 and all three cases have an absolute value greater than 2.5, this is a good indication
that there may be outliers. A value greater than 3.0 would be an even greater indication
that outliers exist, but for this analysis all values are under 3.0 (Field, 2009).
The Cook’s Distance for this analysis has a maximum value of .084 which is less
than 1, reducing the possibility of outliers. The Mahalanobis Distance maximum value is
above the recommended 15; however, the average is 8.901 (Field, 2009).
Table 31
Casewise Diagnostics - Demographic Info. (IV) and Sustainable Competitive Advantage

(DV)
92
DV -
Sustainable
Competitive Predicted
Case Number Std. Residual Advantage Value Residual
22 -2.647 1 6.77 -5.768
37 -2.884 1 7.28 -6.284
83 -2.789 1 7.08 -6.078
Table 32
Residuals Statistics - Demographic Info. (IV) and Sustainable Competitive Advantage

(DV)
Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Predicted Value 5.74 11.84 8.56 1.201
Std. Predicted
-2.348 2.727 .000 1.000
Value
Standard Error
of Predicted .493 1.028 .712 .121
Value
Adjusted
6.20 12.20 8.57 1.234
Predicted Value
Residual -6.284 3.283 .000 2.067
Std. Residual -2.884 1.507 .000 .949
Stud. Residual -3.014 1.559 -.003 1.001
Deleted
-6.863 3.570 -.014 2.304
Residual
Stud. Deleted
-3.179 1.573 -.008 1.019
Residual
Mahal.
3.625 19.035 8.901 3.350
Distance
Cook's
.000 .084 .011 .017
Distance
Centered
.040 .211 .099 .037
Leverage Value
N=91
show that there may be a few outliers with one line significantly higher than the curve.
93
The data in the Normal P-P Plot chart, fluctuates away from the line suggesting that the
data may be non-normal. The points on the Scatterplot are evenly and randomly
distributed on the indicating linearity and homoscedasticity exists.
Research Question 1
acceptance as a trusted advisor and sustainable competitive advantage, was answered by
testing the following hypothesis:
94
acceptance as a trusted advisor and sustainable competitive advantage.

as a trusted advisor and sustainable competitive advantage.
HR Consultant's Sustainable
Acceptance as Competitive
Trusted Advisor Advantage
Figure 24. Conceptual Framework - Research Question 1
Table 33 Research Question 1 - Survey Questions
Variable
decisions?
V19
customers?
V22
V23
issues?
V24
V25
V26
95
data collected and analyzed for this research question (Field, 2009).
Table 34
Research Question 1 Descriptive Statistics
Std.
Mean Deviation N
DV - V25 8.63 1.981 91
V16 8.42 2.171 91
V17 8.78 2.210 91
V18 8.76 2.035 91
V19 9.15 1.949 91
V20 9.02 1.897 91
V21 9.73 1.640 91
V22 8.91 2.122 91
V23 9.03 2.183 91
V24 8.93 2.225 91
V26 8.44 2.495 91
Table 35
Research Question 1 Correlations
96
Dv - V25 V16 V17 V18 V19 V20 V21 V22 V23 V24 V26
DV - V25 1.000 .830 .775 .799 .622 .676 .542 .655 .763 .798 .816
V16 .830 1.000 .777 .775 .660 .667 .569 .551 .715 .765 .770
V17 .775 .777 1.000 .796 .658 .648 .602 .553 .688 .711 .761
V18 .799 .775 .796 1.000 .665 .652 .552 .582 .715 .733 .785
V19 .622 .660 .658 .665 1.000 .871 .670 .506 .665 .592 .527
Pearson V20 .676 .667 .648 .652 .871 1.000 .638 .671 .754 .656 .561
Correlation
V21 .542 .569 .602 .552 .670 .638 1.000 .545 .592 .613 .459
V22 .655 .551 .553 .582 .506 .671 .545 1.000 .840 .780 .605
V23 .763 .715 .688 .715 .665 .754 .592 .840 1.000 .854 .677
V24 .798 .765 .711 .733 .592 .656 .613 .780 .854 1.000 .702
V26 .816 .770 .761 .785 .527 .561 .459 .605 .677 .702 1.000
N=91
Table 36
Research Question 1 Coefficients

Lower Upper
1 DV - V25 .948 .599 1.583 .117 -.244 2.141
V16 .231 .091 .253 2.539 .013 .050 .412 .830 .273 .122 .232 4.319
V17 .069 .084 .077 .821 .414 -.099 .237 .775 .091 .039 .260 3.853
V18 .123 .095 .126 1.293 .200 -.066 .311 .799 .143 .062 .242 4.125
V19 -.068 .115 -.067 -.591 .556 -.297 .161 .622 -.066 -.028 .179 5.581
V20 .144 .124 .138 1.161 .249 -.103 .390 .676 .129 .056 .164 6.097
V21 -.041 .087 -.034 -.479 .633 -.214 .131 .542 -.053 -.023 .449 2.229
V22 .006 .097 .006 .062 .951 -.187 .199 .655 .007 .003 .214 4.682
V23 .046 .111 .051 .414 .680 -.175 .266 .763 .046 .020 .154 6.481
V24 .175 .099 .197 1.762 .082 -.023 .373 .798 .193 .085 .185 5.417
V26 .207 .074 .261 2.808 .006 .060 .354 .816 .300 .135 .267 3.749
similar at .816 and .793, see Table 37, which is another good indication of the
predictability of the outcome. Lastly, since the Sig was less than .05 in the ANOVA, see
Table 38 it appears that the chosen model can confidently predict the outcome because a
Sig less than .05 indicates a relationship between the predictor and outcome variable
(Field, 2009).
Table 37
97
Research Question 1 Model Summary
Change Statistics
Std. Error
1 .903
a
.816 .793 .902 .816 35.460 10 80 .000 2.082
Table 38
Research Question 1 ANOVA
Sum of Mean
1 Regression 288.262 10 28.826 35.460 .000
b
Residual 65.035 80 .813

Total 353.297 90
With a sample size of 91, fewer than five cases (respondents) should be listed in
the casewise diagnostics with a standardized residual absolute value greater than 2, see
Table 39 (Field, 2009). Additionally, there should be no more than one case that has a
standardized residual absolute value of more than 2.5. For this research question, there
are six cases with absolute values greater than 2.0 and two cases with an absolute value
greater than 2.5. A value greater than 3.0 would be an indication that outliers exist, but
for this analysis all values are under 3.0 (Field, 2009).
Table 39
Research Question 1 Casewise Diagnostics
98
Case Std. Predicted
Number Residual DV - V25 Value Residual
19 2.812 11 8.46 2.535
34 -2.020 8 9.82 -1.822
35 -2.275 6 8.05 -2.051
75 -2.882 4 6.60 -2.598
78 2.094 11 9.11 1.888
84 -2.027 7 8.83 -1.828
There are a few key values presented in the Residual Statistics table to determine
if outliers exist, see Table 40, including the Cook’s Distance and Mahalanobis Distance.
The Cook’s Distance maximum value of .135 is less than 1, reducing the possibility of
outliers. The Mahalanobis Distance maximum value is above the recommended 15;
however, the average is 9.89. Boxplots were performed on all the variables to determine
if outliers exist, and the results were positive for a few outliers. There were no outliers on
the dependent variable. Case numbers 63 and 83 showed up on multiple variables as
outliers, specifically on variables 17, 22, 23, and 24. Case 2 showed up as an outlier for
variable 23. Case 4 showed up as an outlier on variable 21. Case 48 showed up as an
outlier on variable 17, and case 88 showed up as an outlier on variable 16.
Table 40
Research Question 1 Residuals Statistics
99
Std.
Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation N
Predicted
3.35 10.75 8.63 1.790 91
Value
Std. Predicted
Value -2.950 1.188 .000 1.000 91
Standard Error
of Predicted .123 .700 .288 .124 91
Value
Adjusted
Predicted 3.76 10.78 8.62 1.799 91
Value
Residual -2.598 2.535 .000 .850 91
Std. Residual -2.882 2.812 .000 .943 91
Stud. Residual -3.097 2.945 .003 1.013 91
Deleted
-3.000 2.782 .006 .985 91
Residual
Stud. Deleted
Residual -3.280 3.100 .001 1.034 91
Mahal.
.679 53.314 9.890 10.157 91
Distance
Cook's
.000 .135 .015 .028 91
Distance
Centered
Leverage .008 .592 .110 .113 91
Value
show that outliers exist with one line significantly higher than the curve. The data in the
Normal P-P Plot chart, fluctuates away from the line suggesting the data is non-normal.
The points on the Scatterplot are evenly and randomly distributed on the indicating
linearity and homoscedasticity exists.
100
Figure 25. RQ1 Histogram Figure 26. RQ1 Normal P-P Plot
Figure 27. Research Question 1 Scatterplot
Non-parametric Test
Due to the normality being questionable from the Normal P-P plot chart, a non-
parametric test was performed for this research question. The results of the Kolmogorov-
Smirnov test confirmed that the null hypothesis should be rejected and the alternative
hypothesis should be accepted, see Table 41.
Table 41
Research Question 1 Non-parametric Test Results

101
Hypothesis Test Summary
Null Hypothesis Test Sig. Decision
V16 is normal with a mean 8.418 One-Sample Kolmogorov- Reject the null
1 and standard deviation 2.17 Smirnov Test .000 hypothesis
A secondary analysis was conducted for this research question using the two
variables that had the highest standardized beta value – V16 and V26. Field (2009)
recommended performing a secondary analysis on the most important predictor variables,
and removing the less important variables. V16 and V26 were selected because they
made significant contributions to the model with a Sig less than .05. They also had the
largest standardized beta value among the predictor variables

102
The model summary, ANOVA, Coefficients table, Casewise Diagnostics,
Residual Statistics, Histogram, Normal P-P Plot Regression Standardized Residual, and
Scatterplot are presented in Tables 42 to 46 and Figures 26 to 28. The secondary analysis
yielded a higher Durbin Watson but it is still close to 2, which is acceptable in a multiple
regression (Field, 2009). The R2 and adjusted R2 are lower but more similar at .765 and
.760, the primary analysis yielded .816 and .793. The ANOVA still looks good with a
Sig less than .05. The value of the F-ratio significantly increased in the ANOVA,
indicating the second model was significantly better in predicting the outcome. The VIF
was significantly reduced in the coefficients table, bringing the average down closer to 1.
The Tolerance remains above .1, confirming there are no serious problems to be
concerned with for this analysis. The Casewise Diagnostics also showed more positive
results with a reduction in number of cases with a standardized residual absolute value
greater than 2. The one negative result is that two of the cases were above 3, indicating
outliers exist. This was confirmed with the boxplot analysis conducted in the primary
analysis above. The maximum Cook’s Distance value remained less than 1, and the
Mahalanobis Distance maximum value was reduced to less than 15 with the secondary
analysis. This conflicts with the standardized residuals in the casewise diagnostics that
indicate an outlier exists.
Table 42
Research Question 1 Secondary Model Summary

1 .875
a
.765 .760 .971 .765 143.505 2 88 .000 2.132
Table 43
103
Research Question 1 Secondary ANOVA
Sum of Mean
1 Regression 270.392 2 135.196 143.505 .000b
Residual 82.905 88 .942
Total 353.297 90
Table 44
Research Question 1 Secondary Coefficients

Lower Upper
1 V25 1.910 .414 4.608 .000 1.086 2.734
V16 .452 .074 .495 6.124 .000 .305 .599 .830 .547 .316 .407 2.454
V26 .345 .064 .434 5.368 .000 .217 .472 .816 .497 .277 .407 2.454
Table 45
Research Question 1 Secondary Casewise Diagnostics
Case Std. Predicted

Number Residual DV - V25 Value Residual
19 3.507 11 7.60 3.404
61 2.342 10 7.73 2.274
75 -3.350 4 7.25 -3.252
78 2.330 11 8.74 2.262
84 -2.257 7 9.19 -2.190
Table 46
Research Question 1 Secondary Residuals Statistics
104
Std.
Predicted Value
3.50 10.68 8.63 1.733 91
Std. Predicted
Value -2.955 1.183 .000 1.000 91
Standard Error
of Predicted
.104 .373 .166 .058 91
Value
Adjusted
Predicted Value 3.44 10.70 8.62 1.742 91
Residual -3.252 3.404 .000 .960 91

Std. Residual -3.350 3.507 .000 .989 91
Stud. Residual
-3.442 3.561 .003 1.010 91
Deleted
-3.432 3.510 .005 1.001 91
Residual
Stud. Deleted
Residual -3.679 3.827 .004 1.037 91
Mahal. Distance
.039 12.314 1.978 2.489 91
Cook's Distance
.000 .220 .015 .034 91
Centered
Leverage Value .000 .137 .022 .028 91
105
Figure 30. RQ 1 Secondary Scatterplot
The data analysis for this research question shows that there is a positive
relationship between the predictor variables and the outcome variable. The analysis
found that the selected model successfully predicts the outcome for this question. Two
variables, V16 and V26, were found to have the most significant positive impact on the
outcome variable. While outliers were found in the data, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov
normality test, confirmed that the null hypothesis should be rejected; therefore, the
research question was answered that there is a positive relationship between the degree of
an HR consultant’s acceptance as a trusted advisor and sustainable competitive
advantage.
Research Question 2
The question, what is the relationship between an HR consultant’s knowledge of
strategic management and sustainable competitive advantage, was answered by testing
the following hypothesis:
H02: There is no relationship between an HR consultant’s knowledge of strategic

106
HA2: There is a relationship between an HR consultant’s knowledge of strategic
The survey questions used to answer this research question include those labeled as V29
through V35 in Table 47, with V34 being the outcome or dependent variable. All of the
variables used for this research question were continuous or scale variables.
HR Consultant's Sustainable
Knowledge of Competitive
Strategic Advantage
Management
Table 47
Research Question 2 Survey Questions
Variable
V29 To what extent do you agree that a business strategy should strengthen
market position while enabling a firm to gain competitive advantage?
To what extent do you agree that your firm currently has a set of defined
V30
strategic goals?
To what extent do you agree that your firm makes HR decisions based on
V31
company defined strategic goals?
To what extent do you agree that identifying and assessing a firm's
V33
resources and capabilities are the foundation of a competitive strategy?
A key issue related to the sustainability of a competitive advantage,
derived from resources and capabilities, is: can the competition replicate
V34
a firm's resources and capabilities and imitate its strategy. To what
extent do you agree?
To what degree do you feel that the employees of your firm possess
V35 capabilities that are unique and result in a differentiation or cost
advantage?
107
data collected and analyzed for this research question (Field, 2009).
Table 48

V34 8.85 1.837 91
V29 9.24 1.747 91
V30 9.03 1.941 91
V31 8.60 2.255 91
V33 9.12 2.043 91
V35 8.71 2.040 91
Table 49
V34 V29 V30 V31 V33 V35

Pearson V34 1.000 .534 .653 .661 .730 .750
Correlation V29 .534 1.000 .538 .603 .649 .596
V30 .653 .538 1.000 .709 .716 .690
V31 .661 .603 .709 1.000 .650 .806
V33 .730 .649 .716 .650 1.000 .683
V35 .750 .596 .690 .806 .683 1.000
N=91
Table 50
108
Standardized 95.0% Confidence
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients Interval for B Correlations Collinearity Statistics
Lower Upper
1 V34 1.755 .686 2.558 .012 .391 3.118
V29 -.029 .093 -.028 -.315 .753 -.215 .156 .534 -.034 -.020 .517 1.934
V30 .075 .098 .079 .758 .450 -.121 .270 .653 .082 .048 .376 2.657
V31 .024 .096 .029 .247 .805 -.167 .214 .661 .027 .016 .294 3.399
V33 .341 .095 .380 3.600 .001 .153 .530 .730 .364 .229 .365 2.740
V35 .387 .105 .430 3.678 .000 .178 .596 .750 .371 .234 .297 3.362
predictability of the outcome (Field, 2009). Lastly, since the Sig was less than .05 in the
ANOVA, see Table 52 it appears that the chosen model can confidently predict the
outcome because a Sig less than .05 indicates a relationship between the predictor and
outcome variable (Field, 2009).
Table 51

Adjusted R of the R Square Durbin-
Model R R Square Square Estimate Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change Watson
1
.809a .655 .635 1.110 .655 32.284 5 85 .000 2.102
Table 52
Sum of Mean
1 Regression 199.039 5 39.808 32.284 .000
b
Residual 104.808 85 1.233

Total 303.846 90
109
are three cases with absolute values greater than 2.0 and two cases with an absolute value
greater than 2.5. Case 81 had a value greater than 3.0, indicating outliers exist (Field,
2009).
Table 53
Case Std. Predicted

Number Residual V34 Value Residual
2 2.448 9 6.28 2.718
25 -2.529 7 9.81 -2.809
81 -5.398 4 9.99 -5.994
however, the average is 4.945. Boxplots were performed on all the variables to
determine if outliers exist, and the results were positive for a few outliers. There were no
outliers on variable 29. Case numbers 37 showed up on all the variables but 29. Case 87
showed up as an outlier for variables 30 and 31. Case 38 showed up as an outlier on
variable 31 only. Case 46 showed up as an outlier on variable 33 only, and case 81
showed up as an outlier on variable 34 only.
110
Table 54
Std.
Predicted
2.26 10.52 8.85 1.487 91
Value
Std.
Predicted -4.430 1.128 .000 1.000 91
Value
Standard
Error of
.126 .829 .258 .123 91
Predicted
Value
Adjusted
Predicted 3.84 10.54 8.85 1.445 91
Value
Residual -5.994 2.718 .000 1.079 91
Std.
-5.398 2.448 .000 .972 91
Residual
Stud.
-5.494 2.650 -.002 1.018 91
Residual
Deleted
-6.210 3.186 -.008 1.197 91
Residual
Stud.
Deleted -6.802 2.751 -.017 1.110 91
Residual
Mahal.
.162 49.157 4.945 6.960 91
Distance
Cook's
.000 .608 .021 .072 91
Distance
Centered
Leverage .002 .546 .055 .077 91
Value
are presented in Figures 30 to 32. The Histogram has a bell-shaped curve, but does show
that outliers exist with one line significantly higher than the curve. The data in the

111
Figure 32. RQ 2 Histogram Figure 33. RQ 2 Normal P-P Plot
Figure 34. RQ 2 Scatterplot
Non-parametric Test
hypothesis should be accepted for this research question, see Table 55.
Table 55
112
V29 is normal with mean 9.242 One-Sample Kolmogorov- Reject the null
A secondary analysis was conducted for this research question using the two
variables that had the highest standardized beta value, V33 and V35. Field (2009)
recommended performing a secondary analysis on the most important predictor variables,
and removing the less important variables. V33 and V35 were selected because they
made significant contributions to the model with a Sig less than .05. They also had the
largest standardized beta value among the predictor variables
yielded a slightly higher Durbin Watson but it is still close to 2, which is acceptable in a
multiple regression (Field, 2009). The R2 and adjusted R2 remained similar at .652 and
113
concerned with for this analysis. The Casewise Diagnostics generated the same number
of cases with a standardized residual absolute value greater than 2.0, with one case still
above 3.0, indicating outliers exist (Field, 2009). This was confirmed with the boxplot
analysis conducted in the primary analysis above. The maximum Cook’s Distance value
remained less than 1. The Mahalanobis Distance maximum value was significantly
reduced, but is still above 15 indicating outliers exist (Field, 2009).
Table 56

1 .807
a
.652 .644 1.097 .652 82.264 2 88 .000 2.161
Table 57
Sum of Mean
1 Regression 197.963 2 98.981 82.264 .000b
Residual 105.883 88 1.203
Total 303.846 90
Table 58
114
Lower Upper
1 V34 1.798 .563 3.193 .002 .679 2.917
V33 .367 .077 .409 4.744 .000 .214 .521 .730 .451 .299 .534 1.874
V35 .424 .078 .471 5.467 .000 .270 .578 .750 .504 .344 .534 1.874
Table 59
Case Std. Predicted

2 2.674 9 6.07 2.933
25 -2.423 7 9.66 -2.658
81 -5.545 4 10.08 -6.082
Table 60
Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation N

2.59 10.51 8.85 1.483 91
-4.218 1.119 .000 1.000 91
.119 .559 .186 .073 91
3.01 10.52 8.84 1.475 91
-6.082 2.933 .000 1.085 91

-5.545 2.674 .000 .989 91
-5.602 2.782 .001 1.009 91
-6.209 3.175 .003 1.130 91
-6.944 2.896 -.013 1.104 91
.065 22.391 1.978 3.268 91

.000 .236 .014 .042 91
.001 .249 .022 .036 91
115
The data analysis for this research questions shows that there is a positive
found that the selected model successfully predicts the outcome for this question. Two
variables, V33 and V35, were found to have the most significant positive impact on the
outcome variable. While outliers were found in the data, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov
normality test, confirmed that the null hypothesis should be rejected; therefore, the
research question was answered that there is a positive relationship between an HR
consultant’s knowledge of strategic management and sustainable competitive advantage.
116
Research Question 3
The question, what is the relationship between HR Architecture and sustainable
competitive advantage, was answered by testing the following hypothesis:
H03: There is no relationship between HR Architecture and sustainable

HA3: There is a relationship between an HR Architecture and sustainable

The survey questions used to answer this research question include those labeled as V37
through V45 in Table 61, with V38 being the outcome or dependent variable. The
variables used for this research question were a combination of continuous or scale
variables and nominal variables.
Sustainable
HR Architecture Competitive
Advantage
Table 61
Research Question 3 Survey Questions
117
Variable
V37 training are aligned with the competitive strategy of the organization?
V38 and practices as a key component to establish and sustain competitive advantage?
V41 training newly hired employees?
V42 their initial onboarding period?
Does your organization have a current employee handbook that was updated within
V44 the past year?
tables (presented below in Tables 62 to 64) yielded a Pearson correlation value less than
.9 for all of the variables. This indicates that no multicollinearity exists among the
Table 62
Std.
Mean Deviation N
V38 8.90 2.231 91
V37 8.86 2.434 91
V40 1.38 .489 91
V41 1.48 .502 91
V42 1.42 .496 91
V43 1.40 .492 91
V44 1.45 .500 91
118
Table 63
V38 V37 V40 V41 V42 V43 V44 V45

Pearson V38 1.000 .826 -.392 -.304 -.404 -.248 -.408 -.539
Correlation V37 .826 1.000 -.448 -.388 -.364 -.277 -.348 -.424
V40 -.392 -.448 1.000 .681 .659 .515 .464 .603
V41 -.304 -.388 .681 1.000 .652 .611 .494 .571
V42 -.404 -.364 .659 .652 1.000 .636 .532 .682
V43 -.248 -.277 .515 .611 .636 1.000 .622 .676
V44 -.408 -.348 .464 .494 .532 .622 1.000 .670
V45 -.539 -.424 .603 .571 .682 .676 .670 1.000
N=91
Table 64
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients 95.0% Confidence Interval for B Correlations Collinearity Statistics
Lower
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Bound Upper Bound Zero-order Partial Part Tolerance VIF
1 V38 3.657 .846 4.324 .000 1.975 5.340
V37 .687 .057 .749 12.130 .000 .574 .799 .826 .800 .647 .745 1.341
V40 .336 .376 .074 .893 .375 -.412 1.083 -.392 .098 .048 .419 2.387
V41 .539 .367 .121 1.469 .146 -.191 1.268 -.304 .159 .078 .417 2.399
V42 -.498 .386 -.111 -1.290 .201 -1.265 .270 -.404 -.140 -.069 .387 2.585
V43 .892 .377 .196 2.368 .020 .143 1.640 -.248 .252 .126 .413 2.421
V44 -.334 .339 -.075 -.984 .328 -1.009 .341 -.408 -.107 -.052 .491 2.037
V45 -1.570 .414 -.342 -3.789 .000 -2.394 -.746 -.539 -.384 -.202 .348 2.870
(Field, 2009).
119
Table 65

Adjusted R of the R Square Sig. F
Model R R Square Square Estimate Change F Change df1 df2 Change Durbin-Watson
1 a
.874 .764 .744 1.129 .764 38.392 7 83 .000 1.849
Table 66
Sum of Mean
1 Regression 342.371 7 48.910 38.392 .000
b
Residual 105.739 83 1.274

Total 448.110 90
With a sample size of 91, fewer than five cases (or respondents) should be listed
in the casewise diagnostics with a standardized residual absolute value greater than 2, see
are five cases with absolute values greater than 2.0 and two cases with an absolute value
greater than 2.5. No case had a value greater than 3.0, indicating no outliers exist (Field,
2009).
Table 67
120
Case Std. Predicted
20 -2.282 8 10.58 -2.575
46 2.501 9 6.18 2.822
60 2.227 10 7.49 2.513
62 2.690 9 5.96 3.036
87 2.036 9 6.70 2.298
however, the average is 6.923. Boxplots were performed on all the variables to
determine if outliers exist, and the results were positive for a few outliers. There were no
outliers on variables 40 through 45. Case numbers 37, 83, and 88 showed up variables 37
and 38. Case 46 showed up as an outlier for variables 37 only.
Table 68
121
Std.
Predicted Value 2.18 11.67 8.90 1.950 91
Std. Predicted Value -3.446 1.420 .000 1.000 91
Standard Error of Predicted

.176 .589 .311 .124 91
Value
Adjusted Predicted Value 2.47 11.81 8.89 1.991 91
Residual -2.575 3.036 .000 1.084 91
Std. Residual -2.282 2.690 .000 .960 91
Stud. Residual -2.313 3.126 .006 1.036 91
Deleted Residual -2.646 4.100 .015 1.266 91
Stud. Deleted Residual -2.377 3.308 .008 1.056 91
Mahal. Distance 1.190 23.519 6.923 5.967 91
Cook's Distance .000 .428 .023 .066 91
Centered Leverage Value .013 .261 .077 .066 91
122
Figure 39. RQ 3 Histogram Figure 40. RQ 3 Normal P-P Plot
Figure 41. RQ 3 Scatterplot
Non-parametric Test
hypothesis should be accepted for this research question, see Table 69, eventhough the
null hypothesis was retained for a few variables (Field, 2009).
Table 69

123
1 V40 - probabilities 0.5 and 0.5. One-Sample Binomial Test 0.036 Reject the null hypothesis
2 V41 - probabilities 0.5 and 0.5. One-Sample Binomial Test 0.834 Retain the null hypothesis
6 V45 - probabilities 0.5 and 0.5. One-Sample Binomial Test 0.021 Reject the null hypothesis
V37 is normal with mean 8.857 One-Sample Kolmogorov-
7
and standard deviation 2.43 Smirnov Test 0.000 Reject the null hypothesis
V38 is normal with mean 8.901 One-Sample Kolmogorov-
8
and standard deviation 2.23 Smirnov Test 0.000 Reject the null hypothesis
A secondary analysis was conducted for this research question using the variable
that had the highest standardized beta value – V37. Variable 40 had the second highest
standardized beta value but had a Sig greater than .05. Field (2009) recommended
performing a secondary analysis on the most important predictor variables, and removing
the less important variables. V37 was selected because it made a significant contribution
to the model with a Sig less than .05.
yielded a slightly higher Durbin Watson but it is still close to 2, which is acceptable in a
124
concerned with for this analysis. The Casewise Diagnostics generated one less with a
standardized residual absolute value greater than 2.0, with two cases now above 3.0,
indicating outliers exist (Field, 2009). This was confirmed with the boxplot analysis
conducted in the primary analysis above. The maximum Cook’s Distance value
remained less than 1. The Mahalanobis Distance maximum value was reduced below 15,
which contradicts the indication that outliers exist. A Mahalanobis Distance below 15
usually indicates no outliers exist (Field, 2009).
Table 70

Adjusted R Durbin-
R R Square of the R Square Sig. F
Square F Change df1 df2 Watson
Model Estimate Change Change
1 .826
a
.682 .679 1.265 .682 191.062 1 89 .000 1.989
Table 71
Sum of Mean
1 Regression 305.706 1 305.706 191.062 .000b
Residual 142.403 89 1.600
Total 448.110 90
Table 72

Lower Upper
1 V38 2.194 .503 4.362 .000 1.195 3.194
V37 .757 .055 .826 13.823 .000 .648 .866 .826 .826 .826 1.000 1.000
Table 73
125
Std. Predicted
Case Number Residual V38 Value Residual
46 3.585 9 4.47 4.534
62 2.986 9 5.22 3.777
75 -3.361 4 8.25 -4.252
87 2.986 9 5.22 3.777
Table 74
Std.
Predicted Value
2.95 10.52 8.90 1.843 91
Std. Predicted
-3.228 .880 .000 1.000 91
Value
Standard Error
.133 .450 .177 .062 91
of Predicted
Value
Adjusted
Predicted Value 3.23 10.57 8.90 1.836 91
Residual -4.252 4.534 .000 1.258 91

Std. Residual
-3.361 3.585 .000 .994 91
Stud. Residual
-3.382 3.728 .000 1.016 91
Deleted
-4.305 4.904 -.001 1.313 91
Residual
Stud. Deleted
Residual -3.603 4.035 .002 1.050 91
Mahal. Distance
.003 10.421 .989 1.873 91
Cook's Distance
.000 .566 .023 .077 91
Centered
Leverage Value .000 .116 .011 .021 91
126
The data analysis for this research questions shows that there is a positive
found that the selected model successfully predicts the outcome for this question.
Variable 37 was found to have the most significant positive impact on the outcome
variable. While outliers were found in the data, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test,
confirmed that the null hypothesis should be rejected; therefore, the research question
was answered that there is a positive relationship between HR Architecture and
127
Research Question 4
HR Architecture, and sustainable competitive advantage was answered by testing the
following hypothesis:

acceptance as a trusted advisor, an HR consultant’s knowledge of strategic
management, HR Architecture, and sustainable competitive advantage.

as a trusted advisor, an HR consultant’s knowledge of strategic management, HR
This research question was analyzed with two different levels. The first level included
four survey questions, variables 25, 34, 36, and 38. For this first level of analysis the
outcome variables for research questions 1-3 (variables 25, 34, and 38) were used as the
predictor variables. These were used to test against the outcome variable 36. The second
level of analysis used all the predictor variables for questions 1-3 to test against the
outcome variable 36.
Level 1
The survey questions used to answer level one of the research question include
those labeled as V25, V34, V36, and V38 in Table 2, with V36 being the outcome or
dependent variable. The variables used for this research question include continuous or
scale variables.
128
Table 75
Research Question 4 Level 1 Descriptive Statistics
Std.
Mean Deviation N
DV - V36 8.56 2.391 91
V38 8.90 2.231 91
V34 8.85 1.837 91
V25 8.63 1.981 91
Table 76
Research Question 4 Level 1 Correlations
V36 V38 V34 V25

DV - V36 1.000 0.829 0.634 0.770
V38 0.829 1.000 0.644 0.788
V34 0.634 0.644 1.000 0.619
V25 0.770 0.788 0.619 1.000
N=91
Table 77
Research Question 4 Level 1 Coefficients

Lower Upper
1 DV - V36 -0.776 .694 -1.119 .266 -2.155 0.603
V38 .576 .102 .538 5.632 .000 .373 .780 .829 .517 .313 .339 2.949
V34 .157 .097 .120 1.609 .111 -.037 .350 .634 .170 .089 .553 1.810
V25 0.327 0.112 0.271 2.914 0.005 0.104 0.55 0.77 0.298 0.162 0.358 2.797
129
(Field, 2009).
Table 78
Research Question 4 Level 1 Model Summary
Change Statistics
Adjusted R Std. Error of R Square df Sig. F Durbin-
Model R R Square Square the Estimate Change F Change df1 2 Change Watson
1 .855a .731 .722 1.261 .731 78.758 5 87 .000 1.667
Table 79
Research Question 4 Level 1 ANOVA
Mean
Model Sum of Squares df Square F Sig.
1 Regression 375.977 3 125.326 78.758 .000b
Residual 138.441 83 1.591
Total 514.418 90
130
are six cases with absolute values greater than 2.0 and three cases with an absolute value
greater than 2.5. Two cases had a value greater than 3.0, indicating outliers exist (Field,
2009).
Table 80
Research Question 4 Level 1 Casewise Diagnostics
Case Std. Predicted

19 -2.041 7 9.57 -2.574
22 -3.301 1 5.16 -4.164
34 2.032 11 8.44 2.563
62 -3.258 4 8.11 -4.110
75 2.307 7 4.09 2.910
87 -2.874 4 7.63 -3.626
however, the average is 2.967. Boxplots were performed on all the variables determine if
outliers exist, and the results were positive for a few outliers. Cases 37, 83, and 88
showed up as outliers for variables 36 and 38. Case 37 also showed up on variable 34.
Case 81 showed up as an outlier on variable 34 as well. Case 22 showed up as an outlier
on variable 36. No outliers showed up for variable 25.
Table 81
Research Question 4 Level 1 Residuals Statistics
131
Std.
Predicted
1.92 10.88 8.56 2.044 91
Value
Std. Predicted
-3.249 1.137 .000 1.000 91
Value
Standard
Error of
.136 .726 .246 .097 91
Predicted
Value
Adjusted
Predicted 2.32 10.94 8.57 2.019 91
Value
Residual -4.164 2.910 .000 1.240 91
Std. Residual -3.301 2.307 .000 .983 91
Stud.
-3.378 2.433 -.003 1.010 91
Residual
Deleted
-4.361 3.237 -.009 1.311 91
Residual
Stud. Deleted
-3.604 2.505 -.010 1.037 91
Residual
Mahal.
.064 28.814 2.967 4.226 91
Distance
Cook's
.000 .166 .015 .032 91
Distance
Centered
Leverage .001 .320 .033 .047 91
Value
132
Figure 45. RQ 4 Level 1 Histogram Figure 46. RQ 4 Level 1 Normal P-P Plot
Figure 47. RQ 4 Level 1 Scatterplot
Non-parametric Test
hypothesis should be accepted for this research question, see Table 82 (Field, 2009).
Table 82
Research Question 4 Level 1 Non-parametric Test Results
133
V25 is normal with mean 8.6262 and One-Sample Kolmogorov- Reject the null
1
standard deviation 1.98 Smirnov Test .000 hypothesis
V34 is normal with mean 8.846 and standard One-Sample Kolmogorov- Reject the null
2
deviation 1.84 Smirnov Test .000 hypothesis
3
4
Level 2
The survey questions used to answer level two of the research question include
those listed in Table 83 below, with V36 being the outcome or dependent variable. The
variables used for this research question include a combination of continuous or scale
variables and nominal variables.
Table 83
Research Question 4 Level 2 List of Variables
DV - V36
V37 V20
V40 V21
V41 V22
V42 V23
V43 V24
V44 V26
V45 V29
V16 V30
V17 V31
V18 V33
V19 V35
134
Table 84
Research Question 4 Level 2 Descriptive Statistics
Std.
Mean Deviation N
DV - V36 8.56 2.391 91
V37 8.86 2.434 91
V40 1.38 .489 91
V41 1.48 .502 91
V42 1.42 .496 91
V43 1.40 .492 91
V44 1.45 .500 91
V45 1.37 .486 91
V16 8.42 2.171 91
V17 8.78 2.210 91
V18 8.76 2.035 91
V19 9.15 1.949 91
V20 9.02 1.897 91
V21 9.73 1.640 91
V22 8.91 2.122 91
V23 9.03 2.183 91
V24 8.93 2.225 91
V26 8.44 2.495 91
V29 9.24 1.747 91
V30 9.03 1.941 91
V31 8.60 2.255 91
V33 9.12 2.043 91
V35 8.71 2.040 91
Table 85
Research Question 4 Level 2 Correlations
135
DV-36 V37 V40 V41 V42 V43 V44 V45 V16 V17 V18 V19 V20 V21 V22 V23 V24 V26 V29 V30 V31 V33 V35
Pearson DV - V36 1.000 .829 -.471 -.404 -.443 -.266 -.306 -.497 .744 .669 .736 .473 .507 .419 .586 .641 .726 .817 .483 .638 .705 .557 .705
Correlation V37 .829 1.000 -.448 -.388 -.364 -.277 -.348 -.424 .796 .711 .713 .623 .648 .524 .546 .678 .725 .788 .560 .690 .656 .721 .659
V40 -.471 -.448 1.000 .681 .659 .515 .464 .603 -.383 -.353 -.452 -.284 -.225 -.213 -.245 -.272 -.303 -.377 -.279 -.505 -.404 -.314 -.367
V41 -.404 -.388 .681 1.000 .652 .611 .494 .571 -.330 -.243 -.286 -.202 -.174 -.039 -.126 -.126 -.190 -.269 -.173 -.404 -.310 -.328 -.297
V42 -.443 -.364 .659 .652 1.000 .636 .532 .682 -.350 -.341 -.416 -.251 -.270 -.185 -.260 -.218 -.297 -.330 -.310 -.419 -.437 -.336 -.364
V43 -.266 -.277 .515 .611 .636 1.000 .622 .676 -.313 -.328 -.314 -.227 -.176 -.194 -.126 -.105 -.220 -.288 -.307 -.352 -.208 -.314 -.241
V44 -.306 -.348 .464 .494 .532 .622 1.000 .670 -.318 -.362 -.416 -.220 -.221 -.159 -.213 -.166 -.302 -.329 -.355 -.405 -.313 -.423 -.253
V45 -.497 -.424 .603 .571 .682 .676 .670 1.000 -.433 -.460 -.503 -.343 -.274 -.274 -.258 -.242 -.295 -.430 -.460 -.449 -.441 -.348 -.429
V16 .744 .796 -.383 -.330 -.350 -.313 -.318 -.433 1.000 .777 .775 .660 .667 .569 .551 .715 .765 .770 .612 .553 .620 .655 .639
V17 .669 .711 -.353 -.243 -.341 -.328 -.362 -.460 .777 1.000 .796 .658 .648 .602 .553 .688 .711 .761 .624 .554 .540 .584 .577
V18 .736 .713 -.452 -.286 -.416 -.314 -.416 -.503 .775 .796 1.000 .665 .652 .552 .582 .715 .733 .785 .657 .587 .589 .616 .591
V19 .473 .623 -.284 -.202 -.251 -.227 -.220 -.343 .660 .658 .665 1.000 .871 .670 .506 .665 .592 .527 .687 .501 .550 .687 .576
V20 .507 .648 -.225 -.174 -.270 -.176 -.221 -.274 .667 .648 .652 .871 1.000 .638 .671 .754 .656 .561 .672 .531 .675 .722 .648
V21 .419 .524 -.213 -.039 -.185 -.194 -.159 -.274 .569 .602 .552 .670 .638 1.000 .545 .592 .613 .459 .566 .520 .481 .653 .544
V22 .586 .546 -.245 -.126 -.260 -.126 -.213 -.258 .551 .553 .582 .506 .671 .545 1.000 .840 .780 .605 .437 .432 .559 .469 .533
V23 .641 .678 -.272 -.126 -.218 -.105 -.166 -.242 .715 .688 .715 .665 .754 .592 .840 1.000 .854 .677 .554 .456 .641 .565 .588
V24 .726 .725 -.303 -.190 -.297 -.220 -.302 -.295 .765 .711 .733 .592 .656 .613 .780 .854 1.000 .702 .533 .515 .590 .601 .515
V26 .817 .788 -.377 -.269 -.330 -.288 -.329 -.430 .770 .761 .785 .527 .561 .459 .605 .677 .702 1.000 .618 .541 .643 .515 .658
V29 .483 .560 -.279 -.173 -.310 -.307 -.355 -.460 .612 .624 .657 .687 .672 .566 .437 .554 .533 .618 1.000 .538 .603 .649 .596
V30 .638 .690 -.505 -.404 -.419 -.352 -.405 -.449 .553 .554 .587 .501 .531 .520 .432 .456 .515 .541 .538 1.000 .709 .716 .690
V31 .705 .656 -.404 -.310 -.437 -.208 -.313 -.441 .620 .540 .589 .550 .675 .481 .559 .641 .590 .643 .603 .709 1.000 .650 .806
V33 .557 .721 -.314 -.328 -.336 -.314 -.423 -.348 .655 .584 .616 .687 .722 .653 .469 .565 .601 .515 .649 .716 .650 1.000 .683
V35 .705 .659 -.367 -.297 -.364 -.241 -.253 -.429 .639 .577 .591 .576 .648 .544 .533 .588 .515 .658 .596 .690 .806 .683 1.000
N=91
Table 86
Research Question 4 Level 2 Coefficients
95.0%
Unstandardized Standardized Confidence Collinearity
Coefficients Coefficients Interval for B Correlations Statistics
Lower Upper Tolera

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Bound Bound Zero-order Partial Part nce VIF
1 DV -
1.324 1.092 1.213 .229 -.854 3.503
V36
V37 .382 .104 .388 3.682 .000 .175 .588 .829 .408 .152 .154 6.504
V40 .173 .341 .035 .508 .613 -.507 .853 -.471 .061 .021 .352 2.842
V41 -.392 .339 -.082 -1.156 .252 -1.069 .285 -.404 -.139 -.048 .336 2.972
V42 -.154 .347 -.032 -.444 .659 -.847 .539 -.443 -.054 -.018 .330 3.030
V43 .356 .347 .073 1.024 .309 -.338 1.049 -.266 .123 .042 .335 2.983
V44 .805 .327 .168 2.462 .016 .152 1.457 -.306 .286 .102 .366 2.732
V45 -.829 .417 -.169 -1.988 .051 -1.660 .003 -.497 -.234 -.082 .238 4.202
V16 -.014 .102 -.013 -.140 .889 -.218 .189 .744 -.017 -.006 .199 5.018
V17
.005 .093 .005 .056 .956 -.180 .190 .669 .007 .002 .233 4.289
V18 .260 .114 .221 2.285 .025 .033 .487 .736 .267 .095 .183 5.472
V19 .026 .129 .021 .204 .839 -.230 .283 .473 .025 .008 .156 6.421
V20 -.294 .155 -.233 -1.891 .063 -.604 .016 .507 -.224 -.078 .113 8.874
V21 -.170 .104 -.117 -1.636 .107 -.378 .037 .419 -.195 -.068 .335 2.986
V22 .131 .114 .117 1.153 .253 -.096 .359 .586 .138 .048 .167 5.985
V23 -.258 .133 -.236 -1.937 .057 -.525 .008 .641 -.229 -.080 .115 8.670
V24 .384 .116 .358 3.308 .002 .153 .616 .726 .372 .137 .146 6.837
V26 .158 .105 .165 1.505 .137 -.051 .367 .817 .180 .062 .143 6.993
V29 -.141 .099 -.103 -1.414 .162 -.339 .058 .483 -.169 -.059 .325 3.080
V30 -.013 .102 -.010 -.125 .901 -.215 .190 .638 -.015 -.005 .252 3.971
V31 .179 .103 .169 1.739 .087 -.026 .385 .705 .206 .072 .181 5.519
V33 -.030 .115 -.026 -.261 .795 -.258 .199 .557 -.032 -.011 .179 5.598
V35 .264 .101 .225 2.615 .011 .062 .465 .705 .302 .108 .231 4.331
136
(Field, 2009).
Table 87
Research Question 4 Level 2 Model Summary
Change Statistics
R Adjusted Std. Error
Squa R of the R Square Sig. F Durbin-
Model R re Square Estimate Change F Change df1 df2 Change Watson
1 .940a .884 .846 .938 .884 23.469 22 68 .000 1.955
Table 88
Research Question 4 Level 2 ANOVA
Sum of Mean
1 Regression 454.551 22 20.661 23.469 .000b
Residual 59.866 68 .880
Total 514.418 90
With a sample size of 91, fewer than five cases (or respondents) should be listed
in the casewise diagnostics with a standardized residual absolute value greater than 2, see
137
are only four cases with absolute values greater than 2.0 and three cases with an absolute
value greater than 2.5. No cases had a value greater than 3.0, indicating no outliers exist
(Field, 2009).
Table 89
Research Question 4 Level 2 Casewise Diagnostics
Case Predicted
Number Std. Residual V36 Value Residual
4 -2.909 5 7.73 -2.729
22 -2.617 1 3.46 -2.456
73 -2.362 8 10.22 -2.216
89 2.502 7 4.65 2.347
The Cook’s Distance maximum value of .223 which is less than 1, reducing the
possibility of outliers. The Mahalanobis Distance maximum value is above the
recommended 15, with an average of 21.758. This conflicts with the Casewise
Diagnotics. Boxplots were performed in research questions 1-3 and in level 1 of research
question 4, confirming that outliers do exists. Refer back to the above research questions
to review the results of the boxplots in more detail.
Table 90
Research Question 4 Level 2 Residuals Statistics
138
Std.
Predicted
Value .62 11.85 8.56 2.247 91
Std.
Predicted -3.535 1.465 .000 1.000 91
Value
Standard
Error of
Predicted .163 .795 .448 .149 91
Value
Adjusted
Predicted -.21 11.99 8.56 2.229 91
Value
Residual -2.729 2.347 .000 .816 91

Std.
Residual -2.909 2.502 .000 .869 91
Stud.
Residual -3.472 2.985 .004 1.048 91
Deleted
Residual -3.889 3.342 .005 1.220 91
Stud.
Deleted -3.800 3.179 -.001 1.083 91
Residual
Mahal.
Distance 1.741 63.553 21.758 14.199 91
Cook's
Distance .000 .223 .025 .050 91
Centered
Leverage .019 .706 .242 .158 91
Value
139
Due to the normality being questionable from the Normal P-P plot chart, non-
parametric tests were performed on the variables in the preceding research questions and
confirmed that the null hypothesis should be rejected and the alternative hypothesis
should be accepted for this research question (Field, 2009).
Figure 48. RQ 4 Level 2 Histogram Figure 49. RQ 4 Level 2 Normal P-P Plot
Figure 50. RQ 4 Level 2 Scatterplot
Secondary Analysis
A secondary analysis was conducted for this research question using the survey
question with the highest standardized beta value for each independent variable, from the
140
conceptual framework, including HR consultant as trusted advisor, HR consultant’s
knowledge of strategic management, and HR architecture. The survey questions selected
are labeled as variable 24, 35, and 37, see Table 2. Variables 35 and 37 were also one of
the variables with the highest standardized beta value for research questions 2 and 3.
Variable 24 was not one of the variables with the highest standardized beta value for
research question 1. Field (2009) recommended performing a secondary analysis on the
most important predictor variables, and removing the less important variables. These
variables were also selected because they made a significant contribution to the model
with a Sig less than .05.
yielded a slightly lower Durbin Watson but is still close to 2, which is acceptable in a
concerned with for this analysis. The Casewise Diagnostics generated one more case
with a standardized residual absolute value greater than 2.0, with one case now above 3.0,
indicating outliers exist. This was confirmed with the boxplot analysis conducted in the
primary analysis above. The maximum Cook’s Distance value remained less than 1. The
141
Mahalanobis Distance maximum value is still above 15 indicating outliers exist, but the
average is 2.976 (Field, 2009).
Table 91
Research Question 4 Level 2 Secondary Model Summary
Change Statistics
Adjusted R Std. Error of the R Square Sig. F Durbin-
R R Square Square Estimate Change F Change df1 df2 Change Watson
.872a .760 .752 1.191 .760 91.817 3 87 .000 1.876
Table 92
Research Question 4 Level 2 Secondary ANOVA
Sum of Mean
1 Regression 390.941 3 130.314 91.817 .000b
Residual 123.477 87 1.419
Total 514.418 90
Table 93
Research Question 4 Level 2 Secondary Coefficients

Lower Upper
1 V36 -.638 .612 -1.042 .300 -1.855 .579
V24 .259 .082 .242 3.161 .002 .096 .423 .726 .321 .166 .473 2.116
V35 .311 .082 .265 3.786 .000 .148 .474 .705 .376 .199 .563 1.775
V37 .471 .086 .480 5.512 .000 .301 .641 .829 .509 .290 .364 2.747
Table 94
Research Question 4 Level 2 Secondary Casewise Diagnostics

Predicted
Case Number Std. Residual V36 Value Residual
2 2.488 8 5.04 2.964
22 -3.869 1 5.61 -4.610
28 2.150 9 6.44 2.561
46 2.772 9 5.70 3.303
73 -2.103 8 10.51 -2.506
142
Table 95
Research Question 4 Level 2 Secondary Residuals Statistics
Std.
Predicted
1.70 10.82 8.56 2.084 91
Value
Std.
Predicted -3.291 1.082 .000 1.000 91
Value
Standard
Error of
.126 .677 .228 .102 91
Predicted
Value
Adjusted
Predicted 1.89 10.84 8.57 2.058 91
Value
Residual -4.610 3.303 .000 1.171 91
Std.
-3.869 2.772 .000 .983 91
Residual
Stud.
-3.943 3.069 -.004 1.025 91
Residual
Deleted
-4.786 4.048 -.010 1.280 91
Residual
Stud.
Deleted -4.325 3.231 -.006 1.057 91
Residual
Mahal.
.022 28.040 2.967 4.799 91
Distance
Cook's
.000 .598 .025 .087 91
Distance
Centered
Leverage .000 .312 .033 .053 91
Value
143
Figure 51. RQ 4 Level 2 Secondary Histogram Figure 52. RQ 4 Level 2 Secondary
Normal P-P Plot
Figure 53. RQ 4 Level 2 Secondary Scatterplot
The data analysis for this research question shows that there is a positive
found that the selected model successfully predicts the outcome for this question. While
outliers were found in the data, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test, confirmed that
the null hypothesis should be rejected; therefore, the research question was answered that
there is a positive relationship between the degree of an HR consultant’s acceptance as a
trusted advisor, an HR consultant’s knowledge of strategic management, HR
Conclusion
The following research questions were answered (1) what is the relationship
between the degree of an HR consultant’s acceptance as a trusted advisor and sustainable
competitive advantage (2) what is the relationship between an HR consultant’s
knowledge of strategic management and sustainable competitive advantage, (3) what is
the relationship between HR Architecture and sustainable competitive advantage, and (4)
144
advisor, an HR consultant’s knowledge of strategic management, HR Architecture, and
sustainable competitive advantage? The null hypothesis was rejected for all research
questions, because a relationship was found between the predictor and outcome variables.
The results of these findings will be discussed in detail in Chapter 5. Additionally the
limitations, implications, and recommendations for future studies will be presented in
Chapter 5.
145
CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to examine the degree to which an HR consultant
establish a sustained competitive advantage for the business. This final chapter will
synthesize and discuss the results as presented in chapter 4. The study has added to the
existing body of knowledge on HR architecture, strategic management, and the resourced
based view of strategy. Expected and unexpected limitations are addressed. There are
several implications for not only small business leaders, but also for HR consultants
looking to assist small businesses with their HR needs. The chapter closes out with
recommendations on future directions of research stemming from this study.
Summary of the Results
During a review of the literature, a gap was identified casting HR
professionals in the role of a management consultant applying the resource-based view
and other HR capabilities in strategic management settings to assist companies with
aligning their HR architecture and business strategy to establish sustainable competitive
advantage (Colbert, 2004; Kunc & Morecroft, 2010). A significant amount of historical
scholarly research in the field of human resources has focused on larger organizations,
those with more than 100 employees. Fewer human resource studies have been
conducted from a small business perspective, and even fewer studies were performed
from an HR consultant perspective (Fening & Amaria, 2011). An analysis of the
evolution of the seminal work on the resource based view theory, trusted advisor, HR
146
strategic management, HR architecture, and sustainable competitive advantage was
conducted. There is sufficient evidence in recent literature that the resource based theory
of strategy provides a strong foundation for human resource studies, and that the HR
architecture of an organization can be leveraged to establish sustainable competitive
advantage (Ojo, 2011; Kim & Lee, 2012; Beh & Loo, 2013). This study narrowed the
gap in the literature by confirming that an HR consultant, casted in a role as a trusted
advisor, can assist leaders with aligning the HR architecture and business strategy in
small businesses to establish a sustainable competitive advantage.
A multiple regression was performed to study the relationship between the
predictor and outcome variables, in the conceptual framework, including an HR
consultant as trusted advisor, an HR consultant’s knowledge of strategic management,
HR architecture, and sustainable competitive advantage. A statistically significant
positive relationship was found among all the variables, supporting the alternative
hypotheses in all four research questions including (1) what is the relationship between
the degree of an HR consultant’s acceptance as a trusted advisor and sustainable
competitive advantage (2) what is the relationship between an HR consultant’s
knowledge of strategic management and sustainable competitive advantage, (3) what is
the relationship between HR Architecture and sustainable competitive advantage, and (4)
advisor, an HR consultant’s knowledge of strategic management, HR Architecture, and
sustainable competitive advantage? The findings of this study significantly contribute to
the theory and practice of HR strategy and provide a value proposition for both HR
147
consultants and small business leaders, which is fully discussed in the next section
(Wright, et al., 1994; Becton & Schraeder, 2009).
Discussion of the Results
As anticipated, a statistically significant positive relationship was found among all
the predictor and outcome variables in the conceptual framework. In this section, the
results of the study as it relates to each hypothesis and research question are interpreted.
The practical and theoretical implications of the study are clearly examined. A brief
discussion on the limitations of the study that were identified and any design flaws found
during the study are provided.
Research Question 1
A statistically significant, positive relationship was found between the degree of
an HR consultant’s acceptance as a trusted advisor and sustainable competitive
advantage. The multiple regression analysis presented outliers, but non-parametric tests
were used to confirm that the null hypothesis should be rejected. The two variables with
the highest standardized beta value were used to conduct a secondary analysis to further
examine the relationship between the predictor and outcome variables. When the less
significant variables were removed, the significance of the relationship increased between
the predictor and outcome variables and are evaluated in more detail below.
The variable, V16, to what degree do you believe that an HR consultant could be
a trusted advisor was one of the variables with the most statistically significant positive
relationship with the dependent variable for the first research question. This is important
because this confirms that the small business leaders in this study believe that HR
consultants can be a trusted advisor, which is imperative in the client/consultant
148
relationship (Neu, et al., 2011). For HR consultants to have the most influence in
strategic planning, analysis and implementing process, small business leaders need to
trust in the relationship. This provides a value proposition for HR consultants in that if
they are effective in establishing a trustworthy relationship with small business leaders,
they can assist them with making decisions that improve firm performance and establish
The variable, V26, to what extent do you agree that you could have used expertise
from an HR consultant with decisions that involved employee matters was one of the
variables with the most statistically significant positive relationship with the dependent
variable for the first research question. This is important because this confirms that the
small business leaders in this study recognize they may not have the appropriate human
resource knowledge and experience to manage their employees. This provides a value
proposition for both HR consultants and small business leaders; whereby, HR consultants
can use their knowledge and experience to influence the decision making of the
management team, who is ultimately responsible for leveraging human resources. The
value proposition for small business leaders is that they can seek guidance from an HR
consultant, who possesses knowledge of strategic human resource management, and not
have to become experts in the field of human resources themselves.
Research Question 2
A statistically significant, positive relationship was found for research question
two between an HR consultant’s knowledge of strategic management and sustainable
competitive advantage. The multiple regression analysis presented outliers, but non-
149
parametric tests were used to confirm that the null hypothesis should be rejected. The
two variables with the highest standardized beta value were used to conduct a secondary
analysis to further examine the relationship between the predictor and outcome variables.
When the less significant variables were removed, the significance of the relationship
increased between the predictor and outcome variables and are evaluated in more detail
below.
The variable, V33, to what extent do you agree that identifying and assessing a
firm’s resources and capabilities are the foundation of a competitive strategy was one of
the variables with the highest standardized beta value for research question two. This is
important because it confirms that the small business leaders in this study understand the
relationship between resources and capabilities, competitive strategy, and sustainable
competitive advantage. The second variable with the highest standardized beta value for
research questions two, V35, was to what degree do you feel that the employees of your
firm possess capabilities that are unique and result in differentiated or cost advantage?
This is also very important because it confirms that the small business leaders in this
study understand that their employees have capabilities that can be used as a resource in
their competitive strategy to establish and sustain competitive advantage. This is a value
proposition for HR consultants, with strategic management knowledge, because this
study confirms that small business leaders possess the ability to buy-in and support
initiatives that align human resource capabilities with the competitive strategy of the
business. Additionally, HR consultants can assist small business leaders in assessing
current resources and capabilities and provide assistance in acquiring any additional
unique resources needed to support the competitive advantage of the company.
150
Research Question 3
two between an HR architecture and sustainable competitive advantage. The multiple
regression analysis presented outliers, but non-parametric tests were used to confirm that
the null hypothesis should be rejected. There was one variable that stood out among the
rest with the highest standardized beta value which was variable 37, how important is it
that HR practices for recruiting, retention, compensation, and training are aligned with
competitive strategy. This confirms that the small business leaders of the study agree that
these practices, when part of the HR architecture of a company, can be a source of
competitive advantage. This provides a value proposition for both small business leaders
and HR consultants in that the strategic management knowledge and experience of an HR
consultant can be used to assist small businesses with establishing a unique HR
architecture that can be leveraged to establish sustainable competitive advantage.
Research Question 4
four, what is the relationship between the degree of an HR consultant’s acceptance as a
trusted advisor, an HR consultant’s knowledge of strategic management, HR
Architecture, and sustainable competitive advantage? This question was analyzed in two
steps; whereas, the first step used the dependent variables for research questions one, two,
and three as the independent variables to study the relationship with the variable, V36, to
what extent do you agree that a strategy relating specifically to human resources can
enable the company to establish and sustain competitive advantage as the dependent
variable. The second step used the independent variables from research questions one,
151
two, and three as the independent variables again but this time against the same
dependent variable used in the first step. These steps performed further confirmed that
there is a relationship among the variables and that the independent variables reliably
predict the outcome or dependent variable, sustainable competitive advantage, as
depicted in the conceptual framework.
During the first analysis the variable, V38, to what extent do you agree that a firm
should adopt a set of HR policies, processes, and practices as a key component to
establish and sustain competitive advantage had the most statistically significant, positive
relationship with the dependent variable. This is important because the small business
leaders of this study recognize that the HR architecture can be leveraged to establish and
sustain competitive advantage. This provides a value proposition for HR consultants who
can use this to support the ways in which they can assist small business leaders with
competitive strategy. For small business leaders, this is a value proposition because they
can utilize the knowledge and experience of an HR consultant in a differentiation
competitive strategy.
During the second analysis the variable, V37, how important is it that HR
practices for recruiting, retention, compensation, and training are aligned with the
competitive strategy had the most statistically significant, positive relationship with the
dependent variable. This further confirms that the small business leaders in this study see
the value of a unique HR architecture. This reinforces that small business leaders are
open to the idea of leveraging the HR architecture in a competitive strategy, an area that
an HR consultant can play an important role. The buy-in of small business leaders is
152
vitally important to the relationship with a trusted advisor as previously discussed in prior
chapters.
Implications of the Study Results
Over the years, many scholars have built a firm foundation for a human resource
based differentiation strategy that aligns the HR architecture of a company with the
strategic initiatives of the business (Child, 1972; Miles, et al., 1978; Porter, 1980;
Devanna, et al., 1982; Dyer, 1983; Schuler & Jackson, 1987; Wright & McMahan, 1992;
Wright, et al., 2005; Becker & Huselid, 2006; Chew, 2010; Heneman & Milanowski,
2011; Beh & Loo, 2013 ). This study adds to this foundation by casting an HR consultant
into the role of trusted advisor as a way to assist small businesses with leveraging human
resources to establish a sustainable competitive advantage. This study also adds to the
research on small businesses, an area where Barrett and Mayson (2007) recognized the
research was weak on small businesses and HR practices. Becker and Huselid (2006)
pointed out how managers are assuming more HR responsibilities but do not have access
to the resources necessary to be effective, an area that an HR consultant could be
influential. It is through integrating theories, practices and models of strategy with
knowledge of the firm and its industry experience that an HR consultant can best
demonstrate competency in helping and partnering with companies (Becker & Scraeder,
2009). Becton and Schraeder (2009) argued that it is critical that firms and human
resource professionals embrace strategic opportunities for both the vitality of the human
resource field and for all companies. This study has narrowed the gap on the role an HR
consultant can play with helping small business leaders to align the HR architecture of a
153
company with a differentiation competitive strategy used to establish and sustain
Limitations
A limitation identified during the study was that the survey instrument was not
used to collect data previously, so there was no historical data that could be used to
compare against the results. Another limitation was that a few survey questions requiring
nominal answers may have skewed the results for research questions three and four. In
future studies, if using a multiple regression it may be helpful to change these questions
to scale or continuous variables.
Recommendations for Further Study
There are several recommendations for further study. The survey instrument
should continue to be tested in different settings such as other states and countries.
Different statistical techniques could be employed to further understand the relationships
among the variables. Collecting data from larger organizations would confirm if the
results can be generalized to the larger population. Further studies on the additional roles
that an HR consultant with strategic management knowledge can perform in small
businesses would significantly add to the existing body of knowledge. A few examples
include how an HR consultant can assist small business with implementing a human
resource information system (HRIS) to increase efficiencies with their HR architecture.
Can HR consultants, with strategic management experience in a wide range of industries
and settings, partner with scholars to build confidence at the executive table that HR
professionals are a vital stakeholder in the strategic planning, formulation and
implementation processes? Lastly, what does the future look like as strategy consultants
154
and HR professionals begin to share the same space with helping small businesses versus
helping larger organizations?
Conclusion
This study examined the degree to which an HR consultant could influence small
business leaders in formulating a human resource based strategy to establish a sustained
competitive advantage for the business. A multiple regression confirmed that there is a
relationship among the variables, and that the null hypothesis was rejected for all four
research questions. This research provides the field of human resources and strategy with
a value proposition for small business leaders in that an HR consultant can assist with
establishing and sustaining competitive advantage. Through the alignment of human
resource practices with the competitive strategy of the firm, a unique HR architecture can
be developed and leveraged in a differentiation strategy.
155
REFERENCES
Abdullah, A., Musa, R., & Ali, J. (2011). The development of human resource
practitioner competency model perceived by Malaysian human resource
practitioners and consultants: A structural equation modeling (SEM) approach.
International Journal of Business and Management, 6(11), 240-255.
Akhtar, S., Ding, D., & Ge, G. (2008). Strategic HRM practices and their impact on
company performance in Chinese enterprises. Human Resource Management,
47(1), 15-32.
Allen, M., Ericksen, J., & Collins, C. (2013). Human resource management, employee
exchange relationships, and performance in small businesses. Human Resource
Management, 52(2), 153-174. Doi: 10.1002/hrm.21523
Allen, M., & Wright, P. (2006). Strategic management and HRM (CAHRS Working
Paper 06-04). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, School of Industrial and Labor
Relations, Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies. Retrieved from:
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cahrswp/404/
Appelbaum, S., & Steed, A. (2005). The critical success factors in the client-consulting
relationship. The Journal of Management Development, 24(1/2), 68-93.
Arend, R., & Levesque, M. (2010). Is the resource-based view a practical organizational
theory? Organization Science, 21(4), 913-930. Doi 10.1287/orsc.1090.0484
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of

Management, 17(1), 99-120.
Barney, J. (2001). Is the resource-based “view” a useful perspective for strategic

management research? Yes. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 41-56.
Barney, J., & Wright, P. (1998). On becoming a strategic partner: The role of human
resources in gaining competitive advantage. Human Resource Management,
37(1), 31-46.
Barrett, R., & Mayson, S. (2007). Human resource management in growing small firms.
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 14(2), 307-320. doi:
10.1108/14626000710746727
Becker, B., & Huselid, M. (2006). Strategic human resources management: Where do we
go from here? Journal of Management, 32(6), 898-925. doi:
10.1177/0149206306293668
156
Becton, J., & Schraeder, M. (2009). Strategic human resources management: Are we
there yet? The Journal for Quality and Participation, 31(4), 11-18. Retrieved
from: www.asq.org/pub/jqp
Beh, L., & Loo, L. (2013). Human resource management best practices and firm
performance: A universalistic perspective approach. Serbian Journal of
Management, 8(2), 155-167.
Blau, P. (1970). A formal theory of differentiation in organizations. American

Sociological Review, 35(2), 201-218.
Boldizzoni, D., & Quarantino, L. (2011). The role of human resource manager: Change
agent vs. business partner? Research into HRM in Italy. EBS Review, 28, 41 – 52.
Bowen, D., & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM-firm performance linkages: The
role of the “strength” of the HRM system. Academy of Management Review,
29(2), 203-221.
Bower, M (1982). The forces that launched management consulting are still at work.
Journal of Management Consulting, 1(1), 4-6.
Boxall, P. (1998). Achieving competitive advantage through human resource strategy:

Towards a theory of industry dynamics. Human Resource Management Review,
8(3), 265-288.
Brockbank, W., Ulrich, D., Younger, J., and Ulrich, M. (2012). Recent study shows
impact of HR competencies on business performance. Employment Relations
Today, 1-7. doi: 10.1002/ert.21348
Butler, M., Callahan, C., & Smith, R. (2010). Human resource outsourcing: Long term
operating performance effects from the provider’s perspective. Journal of Applied
Business Research, 26(5), 77-85.
Cabrera, E., & Cabrera, A. (2003). Strategic human resource evaluation. Human
Resource Planning, 26(1), 41-50.
Campbell, B., Coff, R., & Kryscynski, D. (2012). Rethinking sustained competitive
advantage from human capital. Academy of Management Review, 37(3), 376-395.
Canbeck, S. (1998). The logic of management consulting. Journal of Management

Consulting, 10(2), 3-11.
Canbeck, S. (1999). The logic of management consulting (part two). Journal of

Management Consulting, 10(3), p. 3-12.
157
Cassell, C., Nadin, S., Gray, M., & Clegg, C. (2002). Exploring human resource
management practices in small and medium sized enterprises. Personnel Review,
31(6), 671-692. Doi: 10.1108/00483480210445962
Chandler, A. Jr. (1962). Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the American
Industrial Enterprise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Chen, Y., Hsu, Y., & Yip, F. (2011). Friends or rivals: Comparative perceptions of
human resource and line managers on future firm performance. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(8), 1703-1722. doi:
10.1080/09585192.2011.565661
Chew, J. (2010). Factors that shape the human resource architecture in the Australian
business environment: The Delphi technique. International Journal of
Management and Marketing Research, 3(1), 103-111.
Child, J. (1972). Organizational structure, environment, and performance: The role of

strategic choice. Sociology, 6(1), 2-22. doi: 10.1177/003803857200600101
Coff, R. (1997). Human assets and management dilemmas: Coping with hazards on the
road to resource-based theory. Academy of Management, 22(2), 374-402.
Colbert, B. (2004). The complex resource-based view: Implications for theory and
practice in strategic human resource management. Academy of Management
Review, 29(3), 341-358.
Collins, C. & Clark, K. (2003). Strategic human resource practices, top management team
social networks, and firm performance: The role of human resource practices in
creating organizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Journal,
46(6), 740-751.
Collins, C., & Smith, K. (2006). Knowledge exchange and combination: The role of
human resource practices in the performance of high-technology firms. Academy
of Management Journal, 49(3), 544-560.
Cooke, F., Shen, J., & McBride, A. (2005). Outsourcing HR as a competitive strategy? A
literature review and an assessment of implications. Human Resource
Management, 44(4), 413-432. Doi: 10.1002/hrm.20082
Dar, I., Yusoff, R., & Azam, K. (2011). Managing human capital for sustainable
competitive advantage: A case of Ufone GSM Pakistan. Interdisciplinary Journal
of Contemporary Research in Business, 2(11), 498-510.
158
Delaney, J., & Huselid, M. (1996). The impact of human resource management practices
on perceptions of organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal,
39(4), 949-969.
Desarbo, W., Benedetto, C., Song, M., & Sinha, I. (2005). Revisiting the Miles and Snow
strategic framework: Uncovering interrelationships between strategic types,
capabilities, environmental uncertainty, and firm performance. Strategic
Management Journal, 26, 47-74. Doi: 10.1002/smj.431
Devanna, M., Fombrun, C., Tichy, N., & Warren, L. (1982). Strategic planning and
human resource management. Human Resource Management, 21(1), 11-17.
Dyer, L. (1983). Bringing human resources into the strategy formulation process. Human
Resource Management, 22(3), 257-271.
Erdil, O., & Gunsel, A. (2007). Relationships between human resource management
practices, business strategy fit and firm performance. Journal of Global Strategic
Management, 1(1), 97-107.
Fening, F., & Amaria, P. (2011). Impact of human resource management practices on
small firm performance in a country in recession. American Journal of Business
Research, 4(1), 23-54.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Galetic, L., & Nacinovic, I. (2006). Compensation management in croatian enterprises:

An empirical study. The Business Review Cambridge, 5(2), 204-211.
Golden, K., & Ramanujam, V. (1985). Between a dream and a nightmare: On the
integration of the human resource management and strategic business planning
processes. Human Resource Management, 24(4), 429-452.
Grant, R. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Implications for

strategy formulation. California Management Review, 114-135.
Grant, R. (2013). Contemporary strategy analysis (8th ed.). West Sussex, UK: Wiley.
Grunbaum, N., Andresen, M., Hollensen, S., & Kahle, L. (2013). Industrial buying
behavior related to human resource consulting services. The IUP Journal of
Marketing Management, XII(2), 27-51.
Gubman, E. (2004). HR strategy and planning: From birth to business results. People
Strategy, 27(1), 13-23.
159
Gurbuz, S., & Mert, I. (2011). Impact of the strategic human resource management on
organizational performance: Evidence from Turkey. The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 22(8), 1803-1822.
Han, J., Chou, P., Chao, M., & Wright, P. (2006). The HR competencies – HR
effectiveness link: A study of Taiwanese high-tech companies. Human Resource
Management, 45(3), 391-406. doi: 10.1002/hrm.20114
He, N. (2012). How to maintain sustainable competitive advantages – case study on the
evolution of organizational strategic management. International Journal of
Business Administration, 3(5), 45-51.
Heneman, H. III. & Milanowski, A. (2011). Assessing human resource practices

alignment: A case study. Human Resource Management, 50(1), 45-64.
Hornsby, J., & Kuratko, D. (2003). Human resource management in U.S. small
businesses: A replication and extension. Journal of Developmental
Entrepreneurship, 8(1), 73-92.
Huselid, M. (1993). The impact of environmental volatility on human resource planning

and strategic human resource management. Human Resource Planning, 16(3), 35-
51.
Huselid, M. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover,

productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 38(3), 635-672.
Innes, P., & Wiesner, R. (2012). Beyond HRM intensity: Exploring intra-function HRM
clusters in SMEs. Small Enterprise Research, 19(1), 32-51.
Kalyani, M., & Sahoo, M. (2011). Human resource strategy: A tool of managing change
for organizational excellence. International Journal of Business and Management,
6(8), 280-286.
Kaufman, B., & Miller, B. (2011). The firm’s choice of HRM practices: Economics
meets strategic human resource management. Industrial and Labor Relations
Review, 64(3), 526-557.
Kazlauskaite, R., & Buciuniene, I. (2008). The role of human resources and their
management in the establishment of sustainable competitive advantage.
Engineering Economics, 5(60), 78-84.
Khatri, N. (2000). Managing human resource for competitive advantage: A study of

companies in Singapore. Human Resource Management, 11(2), 336-365.
160
Kim, A., & Lee, C. (2012). How does HRM enhance strategic capabilities? Evidence
from the Korean management consulting industry. The International Journal of
Kotey, B., & Slade, P. (2005). Formal human resource management practices in small
growing firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 43(1), 16-40.
Kunc, M., & Morecroft, J. (2010). Managerial decision making and firm performance
under a resource-based paradigm. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 1164-1182.
doi: 10.1002/smj.858
Lado, A., & Wilson, M. (1994). Human resource systems and sustained competitive
advantage: A competency-based approach. Academy of Management Review,
19(4), 699-727.
Lambrechts, F., Bouwen, R., Grieten, S., Huybrechts, J., & Schein, E. (2011). Learning to
help through humble inquiry and implications for management research, practice,
and education: An interview with Edgar H.Schein. Academy of Management
Learning & Education, 10(1), 131.147.
Lawler III, E., & Boudreau, J. (2009). What makes HR a strategic partner? People &
Strategy, 32(1), 14-22.
Lengnick-Hall, C., & Lengnick-Hall, M. (1988). Strategic human resources management:

A review of the literature and a proposed typology. Academy of Management
Review, 13(3), 454-470.
Lepak, D., & Snell, S. (1999). The human resource architecture: Toward a theory of
human capital allocation and development. Academy of Management, 24(1), 31-
48.
Lepak, D., & Snell, S. (2002). Examining the human resource architecture: The
relationships among human capital, employment, and human resource
configurations. Journal of Management, 28(4), 517-543.
Levene, H. (1960). Robust tests for the equality of variance. In I. Olkin (Ed.),
Contributions to probability and statistics: Essays in honor of Harold Hotelling
(pp. 278-292). Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.
Long, C., & Ismail, W. (2008). Human resource competencies: A study of the HR
professionals in manufacturing firms in Malaysia. International Management
Review, 4(2), 65-76.
161
MacDuffie, J. (1995). Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance:
Organizational logic and flexible production systems in the world auto industry.
Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48(2), 197-221.
Maister, D., Green, C., & Galford, R. (2000). The trusted advisor. New York: Free Press.
Marlow, S., & Patton, D. (1993). Managing the employment relationship in the small
firm: possibilities for human resource management. International Small Business
Journal, 11(4), 57-64.
Mayer, R., Davis, J., & Schoorman, F. (1995). An integrative model of organizational
trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734.
Miles, R., & Snow, C. (1984). Designing strategic human resources systems.
Organizational Structure, 13(1), 36-52.
Miles, R., Snow, C., Meyer, A., & Coleman, Jr., H. (1978). Organizational strategy,
structure, and process. Academy of Management Review, 3, 546-562. doi:
10.5465/AMR.1978.4305755.
Neu, W., Gonzalez, G., & Pass, M. (2011). The trusted advisor in inter-firm interpersonal
relationships. Journal of Relationship Marketing, 10, 238-263.
10.1080/15332667.2011.624915
Newbert, S. (2008). Value, rareness, competitive advantage, and performance: A

conceptual-level empirical investigation of the resource-based view of the firm.
Strategic Management Journal, 29, 745-768.
Nyberg, A., Moliterno, T., Hale Jr., D., & Lepak, D. (2014). Resource-based perspectives
on unit-level human capital: A review and integration. Journal of Management,
40(1), 316-346.
Ofori, D., & Aryeetey, M. (2011). Recruitment and selection practices in small and
medium enterprises: Perspectives from Ghana. International Journal of Business
Administration, 2(3), 45-60. Retrieved from: www.sciedu.ca/ijba
Ojo, O. (2011). Impact of strategic human resource practice on corporate performance in

selected Nigerian Banks. Ege Academic Review, 1(3), 339-347.
Payne, M. (2010). A comparative study of HR managers’ competencies in strategic roles.

International Management Review, 6(2), 5-12.
Porter, M. (1980). How competitive forces shape strategy. The McKinsey Quarterly, 2,
34-50.
162
Prahalad, C., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard
Business Review, 1-15. Retrieved from: www.hbr.org
Radomska, J. (2014). Operational risk associated with the strategy implementation.

Management, 18(2), 31-43.
Reda, B., Dyer, L., & Molson, J. (2010). Finding employees and keeping them:
Predicting loyalty in the small business. Journal of Small Business and
Entrepreneurship, 23(3), 445-460.
Rousseau, D., & Wade-Benzoni, K. (1994). Linking strategy and human resource
practices: How employee and customer contracts are created. Human Resource
Management, 33(3), 463-489. CCC 0090-4848/94/030463-27
Rowden, R. (1999). Potential roles of the human resource management professional in

the strategic planning process. Sam Advanced Management Journal, 64(3), 22-34.
Sayli, H. (2011). Strategic coherence and the analysis of human resource strategy
architect a case study of Turkey. International Journal of Business and Social
Science, 2(13), 146-160.
Schaffer, R. (2002). High-impact consulting: Achieving extraordinary results.

Consulting to Management, 13(2), 1-7.
Schein, E. (1990). A general philosophy of helping: Process consultation. Sloan

Management Review, 31(3), 57-64.
Schuler, R. (1992). Strategic human resources management: Linking the people with the
strategic needs of the business. Organizational Dynamics, 21(1), 18-32.
Schuler, R., & Jackson, S. (1987). Linking competitive strategies with human resource
management practices. The Academy of Management EXECUTIVE, 1(3), 207-
219.
Schuler, R., & MacMillian, I. (1984). Gaining competitive advantage through human
resource management practices. Human Resource Management, 23(3), 241-255.
Swanson, R., & Holton III, E. (2005). Research in organizations: Foundations and
methods of inquiry. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. San Francisco, CA
Truss, C., & Gratton, L. (1994). Strategic human resource management: A conceptual
approach. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 5(3), 663-
686.
163
Tucker, M., Meyer, G., & Westerman, J. (1996). Organizational communication:
Development of internal strategic competitive advantage. The Journal of Business
Communication, 33(1), 51-69.
Turner, A. (1982). Consulting is more than giving advice. Harvard Business Review,
60(5), 120-129.
Uen, J., Ahlstrom, D., Chen, S., & Tseng, P. (2012). Increasing HR’s strategic
participation: The effect of HR service quality and contribution expectations.
Human Resource Management, 51(1), 3-24. doi: 10.1002/hrm.20467
Ullah, I., & Yasmin, R. (2013). The influence of human resource practices on internal
customer satisfaction and organizational effectiveness. Journal of Internet
Banking and Commerce, 18(2), 1-28.
Ulrich, D., Brockbank, W., & Johnson, D. (2009). The role of strategy architect in the
strategic HR organization. People & Strategy, 32(1). 24-31.
Vinayan, G., Jayashree, S., & Marthandan, G. (2012). Critical success factors of
sustainable competitive advantage: A study in Malaysian manufacturing
industries. International Journal of Business and Management, 7(22), 29-45.
Walker, J. (1999). What makes a great human resource strategy? Human Resource
Planning, 22(1), 11-13.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management

Journal, 5(2), 171-180.
Wilson, C. (2012). The integrated propulsion strategy: A resources capability and

industrial organization. Journal of Management Policy and Practice, 13(5), 159-
171.
Wimmer, R. (2001). Sample size calculator. Retrieved from March 1, 2007 from Roger
Wimmer websites.
http://www.rogerwimmer.com/mmr9e/samplesizecalculator.htm
Wright, P., Gardner, T., Moynihan, L., & Allen, M. (2005). The relationship between HR
practices and firm performance: Examining causal order. Personnel Psychology,
58, 409-446.
Wright, P., McMahan, G., & McWilliams, A. (1994). Human resources and sustained
competitive advantage: A resource-based perspective. International Journal of
Wright, P., & McMahan, G. (1992). Theoretical perspectives for strategic human
resource management. Journal of Management, 18(2), 295-320.
164
165
APPENDIX A. STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL WORK
Academic Honesty Policy
Capella University’s Academic Honesty Policy (3.01.01) holds learners accountable for
the integrity of work they submit, which includes but is not limited to discussion
postings, assignments, comprehensive exams, and the dissertation or capstone project.
Established in the Policy are the expectations for original work, rationale for the policy,
definition of terms that pertain to academic honesty and original work, and disciplinary
consequences of academic dishonesty. Also stated in the Policy is the expectation that
learners will follow APA rules for citing another person’s ideas or works.
The following standards for original work and definition of plagiarism are discussed in
the Policy:
Learners are expected to be the sole authors of their work and to acknowledge the
authorship of others’ work through proper citation and reference. Use of another
person’s ideas, including another learner’s, without proper reference or citation
constitutes plagiarism and academic dishonesty and is prohibited conduct. (p. 1)
Plagiarism is one example of academic dishonesty. Plagiarism is presenting
someone else’s ideas or work as your own. Plagiarism also includes copying
verbatim or rephrasing ideas without properly acknowledging the source by author,
date, and publication medium. (p. 2)
Capella University’s Research Misconduct Policy (3.03.06) holds learners accountable for
research integrity. What constitutes research misconduct is discussed in the Policy:
Research misconduct includes but is not limited to falsification, fabrication,
plagiarism, misappropriation, or other practices that seriously deviate from those
that are commonly accepted within the academic community for proposing,
conducting, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. (p. 1)
Learners failing to abide by these policies are subject to consequences, including but not
limited to dismissal or revocation of the degree.
166
Statement of Original Work and Signature
I have read, understood, and abided by Capella University’s Academic Honesty Policy
(3.01.01) and Research Misconduct Policy (3.03.06), including the Policy Statements,
Rationale, and Definitions.
I attest that this dissertation or capstone project is my own work. Where I have used the
ideas or words of others, I have paraphrased, summarized, or used direct quotes following
the guidelines set forth in the APA Publication Manual.
Learner name
and date 8/5/15
Mentor name
and school Dr. Vincent DeFazio, Capella University
167
APPENDIX B
Dissertation Survey Questions

Prepared by: Kristi Weierbach
6/14/14
Purpose: The purpose of this survey is to gather information to determine the degree to
which an HR Consultant could influence small business leaders in formulating (and
establishing) a human resource based strategy to establish a sustained competitive
advantage for the business.
The first section will focus on demographic questions, with the purpose of better
understanding the population that is responding to the survey questions. The second
section will focus on questions relating to HR consultants, business strategy, and internal
HR practices known as HR architecture.
Section I: Demographic Questions

Please select one answer from each of the following questions:
1. Describe your role in the organization.
a. Owner/Executive
b. Director/Manager
c. HR Professional
d. Other
2. What is your highest level of education?
a. Graduate Degree
b. Bachelor’s Degree
c. Certification
d. Highschool
3. What is your gender?
a. Female
b. Male
4. What state is your company registered for business?
a. Delaware
b. Maryland
c. Pennsylvania
d. Virginia
e. Other
5. What type of business is your company?
a. Incorporated
b. Limited Liability Company
c. Sole Proprietor/Partnership
d. Non-profit
e. Other
168
6. How long has your company been in business?
a. Less than one year
b. 1- 5 years
c. 5- 10 years
d. 10 plus years
7. What industry/market does your company perform business activities?
a. Service
b. Manufacturing
c. Food/Beverage
d. Healthcare
e. Other
8. How many employees does your organization have?
a. 1-50
b. 51-100
c. 101-250
d. 251-500
e. More than 500
9. How many employees (full time and part time) are devoted to HR practices
(excluding those who process payroll) within your company?
a. Less than fulltime equivalent
b. 1-3
c. 4-6
d. 6+
10. Has your organization used an HR consultant in the past? An HR Consultant is an
individual who has credentials in the field of human resources including but not
limited to certification and or Bachelor’s degree or higher in the field.
a. Yes
b. No
11. Do you anticipate hiring an HR consultant in the future?
a. Yes
b. No
Trusted Advisor
169
Consultants are often considered to be trusted advisors, the intent of the following
questions is to determine to what degree certain attributes of an HR consultant as a
trusted advisor are important to you.
12. To what degree do you believe an HR consultant could be a trusted advisor?
Strongly disagree Strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
13. If you were to hire an HR consultant as a trusted advisor, how likely are you to be
open to feedback and suggestions from the HR consultant on how to best resolve
issues?
Not Likely Very Likely

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
14. If you were to hire an HR consultant as a trusted advisor, how likely are you to be
open to the feedback and suggestions from the HR consultant when making
business decisions?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
15. How important is it for an HR consultant to understand certain strategic elements
of the firm such as business goals, values and the firm’s capabilities?
Not important Very Important

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
16. How important is it for an HR consultant to understand certain strategic elements
of the industry in which the company competes such as the competition, suppliers,
and customers?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
17. How important is it that a trusted advisor has good listening skills?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
18. How important is it that a trusted advisor be able to provide guidance in the

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
19. How important is it for a trusted advisor to analyze and bring to your attention
strategic issues?

170
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
20. How important is it for a trusted advisor to assist with formulating a strategy
based upon organizational HR resources and capabilities?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
21. To what degree do you feel you can trust an outside HR consultant to help the
company achieve competitive advantage?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
22. To what extent do you agree that you could have used expertise from an HR
consultant with decisions that involved employee matters?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strategic Management
Strategic Management consists of a business strategy and a competitive strategy. The
intent of the following questions is to determine your understanding of strategic
management, how it is utilized within your firm, and your perception on the role of
human resources in strategic management.
Business Strategy
1. To what extent do you agree that a business strategy should strengthen market
position while enabling a firm to gain competitive advantage?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. To what extent do you agree that your firm currently has a set of defined strategic
goals?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. To what extent do you agree that your firm makes HR decisions based on
company defined strategic goals?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
171
Competitive Strategy
1. To what extent do you agree that identifying and assessing a firm’s resources and
capabilities are the foundation of a competitive strategy?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. A key issue related to the sustainability of a competitive advantage, derived from
resources and capabilities, is: can the competition replicate a firm’s resources and

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. To what degree do you feel that the employees of your firm possess capabilities
that result in that are unique and result in a differentiation or cost advantage?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. To what extent do you agree that a strategy relating specifically to human
resources can enable the company to establish and sustain competitive advantage?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. How important is it that HR practices for recruiting, retention, compensation, and

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. To what extent do you agree that a firm should adopt a set of HR policies,
procedures, and practices as a key component to establish and sustain competitive
advantage?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
HR Architecture
HR Architecture refers to the policies, procedures, and practices that a firm utilizes to
manage its human resources. The intent of the follow questions is to determine if your
firm has an HR architecture in place.
The following questions will be used to analyze, sort and group responses.
1. Does your organization have a recruiting strategy? Yes or No
2. Does your organization have an onboarding strategy? Yes or No
3. Does your organization have a training and development strategy for employees
after their initial onboarding period? Yes or No
172
4. Does your organization have a compensation and benefit strategy? Yes or No
5. Does your organization have a current employee handbook that was updated
within the past year? Yes or No
6. Does your organization have a policy and procedure manual for HR related
practices? Yes or No
Thank you for your feedback and participation, it is greatly appreciated!

Kristi Weierbach
173

Thesis HR Consultants Enabling Small

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

Thesis HR Consultants Enabling Small

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HR CONSULTANTS: ENABLING SMALL BUSINESS LEADERS TO

ESTABLISH SUSTAINABLE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE

VINCENT DEFAZIO, DM Faculty Mentor and Chair

JOHN HANNON, PhD, Committee Member

DAVID STEIN, PhD, Committee Member

Barbara Butts Williams, PhD, Dean, School of Business and Technology

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

All rights reserved.

administered, through QuestionPro, to 92 small business leaders who worked in

including (1) what is the relationship between the degree of an HR consultant’s

relationship between an HR consultant’s knowledge of strategic management and

sustainable competitive advantage, (3) what is the relationship between HR Architecture

degree of an HR consultant’s acceptance as a trusted advisor, an HR consultant’s

knowledge of strategic management, HR Architecture, and sustainable competitive

with a differentiation competitive strategy used to establish and sustain competitive

This dissertation is dedicated to my husband, Eugene, and my daughter, Madison,

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1

Introduction to the Problem ............................................................................................ 1

Background of the Study ................................................................................................ 3

Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................ 7

Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................................... 7

Research Questions ......................................................................................................... 9

Significance of the Study .............................................................................................. 10

HR consultant’s acceptance as trusted advisor ......................................................... 11

HR consultant’s knowledge of strategic management .............................................. 11

Sustainable competitive advantage ........................................................................... 12

Small Business .......................................................................................................... 12

Small Business Leader .............................................................................................. 12

Limitations and Assumptions ....................................................................................... 13

Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................. 13

Organization of the Remainder of the Study ................................................................ 17

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................... 19

HR Consultant as Trusted Advisor ........................................................................... 21

Knowledge of Strategic Management ........................................................................... 23

HR Competencies in Strategic Management ............................................................ 26

Sustainable Competitive Advantage ............................................................................. 40

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY .................................................................................... 48

Data Collection ............................................................................................................. 53

Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 54

Validity and Reliability ................................................................................................. 55

Ethical Considerations .................................................................................................. 56

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS .................................................................................................. 58

Description of the Population and Sample.................................................................... 58

Sample size and procedures ...................................................................................... 59

Summary of Results ...................................................................................................... 62

Research Question 2 ................................................................................................. 65

Research Question 3 ................................................................................................. 65

Research Question 4 ................................................................................................. 66

Details of Analysis and Results .................................................................................... 66

Demographic Analysis .............................................................................................. 72

Research Question 1 ................................................................................................. 94

Research Question 2 ............................................................................................... 106

Research Question 3 ............................................................................................... 117

Research Question 4 ............................................................................................... 128

Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 144

CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS ................. 146

Introduction ................................................................................................................. 146

Summary of the Results .............................................................................................. 146

Discussion of the Results ............................................................................................ 148

Research Question 1 ............................................................................................... 148