MGT509 Trident Module 3 Mapping Human Resource Management Article Discussion Hi there below I posted my assignment. If more information is needed, please l

MGT509 Trident Module 3 Mapping Human Resource Management Article Discussion Hi there below I posted my assignment. If more information is needed, please let me know. Human Resource Management Review 27 (2017) 367–396
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Human Resource Management Review
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/humres
Mapping Human Resource Management: Reviewing the field
and charting future directions
Maria Panayiota Markoulli a, Colin I.S.G. Lee b, Eliza Byington a, Will A. Felps a,⁎
a
b
School of Management, UNSW Business School, University of New South Wales, Australia
Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary, Canada
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 3 March 2015
Received in revised form 2 October 2016
Accepted 3 October 2016
Keywords:
Human Resource Management
Science mapping
Bibliometric
Research-practice gap
a b s t r a c t
Using recent advances in science mapping, this article systematically reviews the Human Resource Management (HRM) field. We analyze 12,157 HRM research articles published over
23 years to reveal the topic content and intellectual structure of HRM scholarship. A downloadable, searchable HRM topic map is provided (http://bit.ly/HR-Map) that reveals: a) 1702 HRM
article topics, b) the number of articles on each topic, c) topic relations, trends, and impact, and
d) five major HRM topic clusters. We discuss the overall intellectual structure of HRM scholarship and review the five topic clusters. Next, the topic content of HRM scholarship is compared
to that of 6114 articles from the practitioner-oriented outlet HR Magazine. We identify 100
topics emphasized to a much greater degree in the practitioner-oriented literature. Seven key
themes for future research that could help align HRM scholarship with the interests of HR practitioners are identified and discussed.
© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
In the Human Resource Management (HRM) field, review articles typically consider only some of the “trees”, but lack the
scope to provide a synthetic overview of the “forest” of HRM scholarship. In particular, HRM review articles typically focus on examining the contents of a small number of articles on a specific topic or research question. As such, scholars are likely to have a
fragmented and incomplete view of the field overall, which may result in research silos, redundant research efforts, and lost opportunities for meaningful conversations between topic areas. Moreover, narrow, disconnected, and incomplete views of the HRM
field can limit scholars’ ability to detect research opportunities.
In recent years, new alternatives to the traditional narrow review have emerged. In particular, what can be called structural
reviews 1) examine the relations between topic areas, and 2) use some form of quantification to succinctly summarize a large literature (Porter, Kongthon, & Lu, 2002). As Porter et al. (2002), a broad scan of a literature “can extend the span of science by better linking efforts across research domains. Topical relationships, research trends, and complementary capabilities can be
discovered, thereby facilitating research projects” (p. 351). In addition, because structural reviews employ some form of quantification and objective analysis, such reviews “improve the review process by synthesizing research in a systematic, transparent, and
reproducible manner” (Tranfield, Denyer, & Smart, 2003, p. 207). In doing so, structural reviews help overcome a key limitation of
traditional review articles: their lack of rigor (i.e. biased, subjective, impressionistic description).
⁎ Corresponding author at: School of Management, West Lobby Level 5, Office 534C, UNSW Business School building, UNSW Australia, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia.
E-mail addresses: m.markoulli@unswalumni.com (M.P. Markoulli), colin.lee@haskayne.ucalgary.ca (C.I.S.G. Lee), e.byington@unsw.edu.au (E. Byington),
w.felps@unsw.edu.au (W.A. Felps).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.10.001
1053-4822/© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
368
M.P. Markoulli et al. / Human Resource Management Review 27 (2017) 367–396
In this article, we employ science mapping from the discipline of bibliometrics to provide the most comprehensive and systematic review of the HRM field to date. In particular, while a traditional review might analyze 50–200 articles, this review is
based on a rigorous analysis of 12,157 systematically identified HRM research articles published over N23 years. The science
map analysis on which this review is based is presented to readers in the form of the downloadable HRM Map, which allows
readers to explore: a) 1702 topics in HRM scholarship, b) the number of articles on each topic, c) topic relations, trends, and impact, and d) five systematically identified, major HRM topic clusters. After presenting this analysis, we describe how scholars can
use the downloadable HRM Map and systematic reviews provided to identify promising future research opportunities from across
the HRM literature using the process of abductive reasoning.
In the latter portion of this article, we turn our attention to identifying research opportunities that can help bridge the “research-practice gap” in HRM. In particular, a number of HRM scholars have raised concerns that there may be discrepancies between the topics studied in HRM scholarship and the topics of interest to HR practitioners (e.g. Deadrick & Gibson, 2007, 2009;
Rynes, Giluk, & Brown, 2007). However, prior attempts to identify if/where these gaps exist have drawn on limited samples of
HRM scholarship, and employ methods that only identify discrepancies at the level of broad topic categories (e.g. Strategic
HRM) (e.g. Deadrick & Gibson, 2007, 2009). As such, it is difficult to know a) whether the discrepancies identified previously
are artifacts of the limited sample of HRM scholarship analyzed, and b) which specific topics warrant greater scholarly attention.
The second major section of this paper aims to address these issues by providing a comparative topic analysis of 1) the 12,157
HRM research articles versus 2) 6114 articles from a key practitioner-oriented outlet: the Society for Human Resource Management’s HR Magazine. We systematically identify 100 specific topics with the greatest discrepancy in emphasis between HR
practitioner-oriented writing versus academic HRM. We then review seven topic themes for future research that could help
align HRM scholarship with the interests of practitioners.
This article endeavors to make four substantial contributions to HRM scholarship. First, we aim to provide the most rigorous
description of the intellectual structure of HRM field to date – offering readers a bibliometrically grounded taxonomy of HRM literatures, a searchable topic map of the field, reviews of five systematically identified major topic literatures in HRM, and views of
changes in the field over time. Second, we describe how opportunities for future scholarship can be detected by applying
abductive reasoning to the downloadable HRM Map and topic cluster reviews. Third, the identification of 100 specific topics emphasized to a much greater degree in practitioner-oriented (as compared to academic) HRM provides actionable insights as to
which topics HRM scholars could attend to to help address the “research-practice gap”. Fourth, we conclude with a number of
provocations meant to evoke “big picture” reflection by HRM scholars on the status and trajectories of their literatures, and to
flag what we see as key challenges and opportunities for these literatures going forward.
2. Prior reviews of the HRM field and the added value of science mapping
Existing reviews on the HRM field can be categorized as either: 1) narrative reviews, or 2) structural reviews. Traditional narrative reviews tend to be impressionistic, offer a paper-by-paper analysis, and consider a fairly narrow topic area (e.g. green HRM
– Renwick, Redman, & Maguire, 2013; e-HRM – Stone & Dulebohn, 2013). As can be seen from Table 1, the majority of narrative
reviews in the HRM literature – i.e. 94 out of 115 articles – offer in-depth consideration of a particular HRM topic area. While
valuable, these narrow reviews profile the “trees”, but not the “forest”.
At a macro level, 19 narrative field-level reviews have attempted to provide a broad description of the HRM field (see Table 2)
from methodological (e.g. Guest, 2001; Williams & O’Boyle, 2008), historical (e.g. Kaufman, 2014), and theoretical (e.g. Ferris,
Hochwarter, Buckley, Harrell-Cook, & Frink, 1999) standpoints. However, as such narrative reviews are impressionistic (rather
than systematic) in their analysis, the validity of their descriptions and conclusions are questionable (Tranfield et al., 2003). Indeed, many of the questions considered in narrative field-level reviews of HRM (e.g. What are the field’s major topic areas?
What are the topics that have received the most research attention? How well integrated are various literatures within the
field?) are ultimately empirical questions that can be answered through quantitative analysis of scholarship.
In contrast with narrative reviews, what we label as “structural reviews” take a different approach. Structural reviews have a
macro focus and use some form of quantification to consider patterns across multiple topic literatures (Porter et al., 2002). Five
structural reviews have attempted to profile the HRM field overall in various ways, and identify its subfields (Deadrick &
Gibson, 2007, 2009; Fernandez-Alles & Ramos-Rodriguez, 2009; García-Lillo, Úbeda-García, & Marco-Lajara, 2016; Hoobler & Johnson, 2004). These articles are a substantial improvement over assertions about the major categories of HRM scholarship that are
not grounded in any quantitative analysis of scholarship (e.g. Martín-Alcázar, Romero-Fernández, & Sánchez-Gardey, 2008). While
these prior works make important contributions, they also all have major limitations.
First, prior structural reviews of the HRM field have tended to rely on intuition to determine the major categories of HRM
scholarship, and rely on subjective assessments to assign topics and articles to these categories. While authors’ intuitively derived
categories of HRM scholarship can be informative, they can also inadvertently introduce author bias and mischaracterizations into
the picture of the field they present (Tranfield et al., 2003). For example, new topic areas or those that authors are unfamiliar with
can be overlooked. Indeed, given the size of the HRM literature, intuitively derived topic categories are unlikely to fully and accurately represent the field’s topic content and structure. In contrast, new bibliometric approaches can be used to systematically
identify 1) scholarly topics, 2) higher-level topic domains, and 3) which topics empirically “belong” to which topic domains.
Second, the few articles that attempt to empirically identify major HRM topic areas rely on article samples from one or two
journals that represent only a fraction of the HRM literature (Deadrick & Gibson, 2007, 2009; Fernandez-Alles & RamosRodriguez, 2009; García-Lillo et al., 2016; Hoobler & Johnson, 2004). Drawing on non-representative samples can misrepresent
M.P. Markoulli et al. / Human Resource Management Review 27 (2017) 367–396
369
Table 1
Traditional reviews of HRM subfields.
Review
Key topics discussed and reviewed
Theoreticala Methodologicalb Historicalc
Shen, Chanda, D’Netto, and Monga (2009)
Marler and Fisher (2013)
Stone and Dulebohn (2013)
Strohmeier (2007)
Greenwood (2012)
Renwick, Redman, and Maguire (2013)
Cooke, Shen, and McBride (2005)
Bardoel, De Cieri, and Santos (2008)
Dulebohn, Molloy, Pichler, and Murray (2009)
Gupta and Shaw (2014)
Xavier (2014)
Wang and Shultz (2010)
Cullinane and Dundon (2006)
Levashina, Hartwell, Morgeson, and Campion (2014)
Macan (2009)
Garengo, Biazzo, and Bititci (2005)
Sturman (2007)
Breaugh (2008)
Breaugh (2013)
Breaugh and Starke (2000)
Hough and Oswald (2000)
Ployhart (2006)
Ryan and Ployhart (2014)
Sackett and Lievens (2008)
Chen and Klimoski (2007)
Salas and Cannon-Bowers (2001)
Tharenou, Saks, and Moore (2007)
Holtom, Mitchell, Lee, and Eberly (2008)
Hom, Mitchell, Lee, and Griffeth (2012)
Steel and Lounsbury (2009)
Zanko and Dawson (2012)
Godard and Delaney (2000)
Truss, Shantz, Soane, Alfes, and Delbridge (2013)
Van De Voorde, Paauwe, and Van Veldhoven (2012)
Boselie, Dietz, and Boon (2005)
Dyer and Reeves (1995)
Fleetwood and Hesketh (2006)
Gerhart, Wright, Mc Mahan, and Snell (2000)
Guest (1997)
Guest (2011)
Janssens and Steyaert (2009)
Kim, Wright, and Su (2010)
Paauwe and Boselie (2005)
Paauwe (2009)
Alewell and Hansen (2012)
Jiang et al. (2012)
Sanders, Shipton, and Gomes (2014)
Afiouni, Ruel, and Schuler (2014)
Aycan (2005)
Bartram and Dowling (2013)
Brewster and Suutari (2005)
Budhwar and Debrah (2009)
Claus and Briscoe (2009)
Cooke (2009)
De Cieri, Cox, and Fenwick (2007)
Delbridge, Hauptmeier, and Sengupta (2011)
Doherty (2013)
Kamoche et al. (2012)
Kang and Shen (2014)
McDonnell, Stanton and Burgess (2011)
Napier and Vu (1998)
Poon and Rowley (2010)
Schuler and Tarique (2007)
Schuler, Budhwar, and Florkowski (2002)
Takeuchi (2010)
Wei and Rowley (2009)
Budhwar and Debrah (2001)
Diversity management
Electronic HRM (e-HRM); SHRM
Emerging directions: e-HRM
Emerging directions: e-HRM
Emerging directions: ethical HRM
Emerging directions: green HRM
Emerging directions: outsourcing HR
Employee wellbeing: work-life balance
Compensation
Compensation
Compensation
Employee retirement
Employment contracts
Employment interviews
Employment interviews
Performance management
Performance management
Recruitment & selection
Recruitment & selection
Recruitment & selection
Recruitment & selection
Recruitment & selection
Recruitment & selection
Recruitment & selection
Training
Training
Training
Turnover & retention
Turnover & retention
Turnover & retention
Work, health & safety
HRM & industrial relations
HRM-performance & employee engagement
HRM-performance & employee wellbeing
HRM-performance link
HRM-performance link
HRM-performance link
HRM-performance link
HRM-performance link
HRM-performance link
HRM-performance link
HRM-performance link
HRM-performance link
HRM-performance link
HRM-performance link: HRM process approach
HRM-performance link: HRM process approach
HRM-performance link: HRM process approach
IHRM (international human resource management)
IHRM
IHRM
IHRM
IHRM
IHRM
IHRM
IHRM
IHRM
IHRM
IHRM
IHRM
IHRM
IHRM
IHRM
IHRM
IHRM
IHRM
IHRM
IHRM: comparative HRM
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
(continued on next page)
370
M.P. Markoulli et al. / Human Resource Management Review 27 (2017) 367–396
Table 1 (continued)
Review
Key topics discussed and reviewed
Theoreticala Methodologicalb Historicalc
Clark, Grant, and Heijltjes (1999)
Steinmetz, Schwens, Wehner, and Kabst (2011)
Arthur and Boyles (2007)
Bahuguna, Kumari, and Srivastava (2009)
Batt and Banerjee (2012)
Boxall and Purcell (2000)
Delery and Doty (1996)
Jackson, Schuler, and Jiang (2014)
Jiang, Takeuchi, and Lepak (2013)
Kaufman (2010)
Kaufman (2012)
Lengnick-Hall and Lengnick-Hall (1988)
Lengnick-Hall, Lengnick-Hall, Andrade, and Drake (2009)
Lepak and Shaw (2008)
Lepak, Liao, Chung, and Harden (2006)
Way and Johnson (2005)
Wright and McMahan (1992)
Wright and Snell (1991)
Fulmer and Ployhart (2014)
Nyberg, Moliterno, Hale, and Lepak (2014)
Wright, Coff, and Moliterno (2014)
Dries (2013)
Gelens, Dries, Hofmans, and Pepermans (2013)
Lewis and Heckman (2006)
Nijs, Gallardo-Gallardo, Dries, and Sels (2014)
Tarique and Schuler (2010)
Thunnissen, Boselie, and Fruytier (2013)
IHRM: comparative HRM
IHRM: comparative HRM
SHRM (strategic human resource management)
SHRM
SHRM
SHRM
SHRM
SHRM
SHRM
SHRM
SHRM
SHRM
SHRM
SHRM
SHRM
SHRM
SHRM
SHRM
Strategic human capital
Strategic human capital
Strategic human capital
Talent management
Talent management
Talent management
Talent management
Talent management
Talent management
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
a
b
c
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Reviews of theoretical concepts and frameworks.
Reviews of method-related issues.
Review of the historical evolution of research over a particular time period.
the actual topic content and structure of HRM scholarship. For example, in drawing on article counts from only two journals
(Journal of Applied Psychology, Personnel Psychology), Deadrick and Gibson’s (2007, 2009) research designates Teams/Work groups
as a major category of HRM scholarship alongside categories such as Strategic HRM and International HRM. Indeed, drawing on this
narrow sample leads the authors to find that Teams/Work groups is a larger HRM research literature than International HRM. The
authors acknowledge that drawing on two journals is a limitation, further noting that “Admittedly these two journals are outlets
Table 2
Narrative reviews of the HRM literature: Field level.
Review
Key topics discussed and reviewed
Becker and Menges (2013)
Budhwar (1996)
Davidson, McPhail, and Barry
(2011)
DeNisi, Wilson, and Biteman
(2014)
Ferris et al. (1999)
Ferris et al. (2007)
Fisher (1989)
Reviews the use of biological measures.
Reviews some key HRM models.
Reviews historical evolution of whole field; zooms into theory on Hospitality
HRM also.
Reviews divergence of research and practice worlds.
Godard (2014)
Guest (2001)
Kamoche (1991)
Kaufman (2014)
Mahoney and Deckop (1986)
McKenna, Singh, and Richardson
(2008)
Roehling et al. (2005)
Ruona and Gibson (2004)
Schuler and Jackson (2014)
Ulrich (1998)
Watson (2010)
Williams and O’Boyle (2008)
Reviews theoretical foundations of the field.
Reviews evolution of HRM field.
Reviews research regarding issues relating to both HR executives and HR
managers.
Reviews how the employment relations has become more psychologically
oriented.
Offers recommendations on how empirical research can be improved in HRM
literature.
Reviews the relationship between HRM and various philosophies of science.
Reviews historical evolution of field.
Reviewed developments of personnel administration and HRM.
Reviews HRM’s ontologies; encourages more interpretivist research and critical
analysis of HRM.
Identifies some of the existing limitations of current literature and outlines key
future needs.
Reviews evolution of HRM field.
Reviews field’s historical evolution from a multiple stakeholder perspective.
Reviews importance of HRM field.
Philosophically and critically reviews HRM.
Reviews measurement models used in HRM.
Theoretical Methodological Historical
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
M.P. Markoulli et al. / Human Resource Management Review 27 (2017) 367–396
371
that focus on the interests of Industrial/Organizational (I/O) Psychologists” (Deadrick & Gibson, 2007, p. 137). Similarly, GarcíaLillo et al. (2016, p. 1486) also note the “selection of a single journal: IJHRM” as a limitation of their study. Without an actual
field-level assessment that systematically identifies HRM scholarship from across journals, it is difficult to know how representative any one HRM journal is and/or if particular journals skew toward particular kinds of HRM scholarship. Indeed, our use of
bibliometrics to identify a more comprehensive body of HRM scholarship suggests the need for caveats around the claims
made in the above mentioned studies, as their source journals appear to skew toward certain kinds of HRM scholarship in
ways that are likely to overlook at least one (and as many as three) major HRM literatures. Thus, the representativeness of
these prior depictions of the HRM field is questionable.
In contrast, the field of bibliometrics has developed methods for rigorously identifying and analyzing large academic literatures
to produce dramatical…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment