strategic human resource management, human capital and ...ijrar.org/papers/ijrar1axp005.pdf ·...
Post on 24-Sep-2020
7 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
© 2019 IJRAR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 2 www.ijrar.org (E-ISSN 2348-1269, P- ISSN 2349-5138)
IJRAR1AXP005 International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews (IJRAR) www.ijrar.org 78
Strategic human resource management, human
capital and competitive advantage:
is the field going in circles?
Dr. Kiran R. Naik.
Director’ Skill Development
Vision Fly
2nd Floor, Above Malabar Gold,
Adarsha Mall, Beside Hotel Adarsha Palace,
Opposite RLS College,
College Road
Belagavi -590001
Abstract
The resource‐based view (RBV) of the firm has been consistently used as a backdrop in strategic human resource
management (SHRM) research and has the potential to bridge the ‘micro–macro’ divide. The tension between the
SHRM and the strategic human capital literature, however, signifies that RBV has not reached its potential. In this
paper, we begin with a brief review of the conceptual logic linking human resource management (HRM) practices
and firm outcomes that aim at highlighting the different treatment of RBV in the SHRM and strategic human capital
literatures. We then propose a conceptual model that suggests that HRM practices are not simple levers that enable
firms to create sustainable competitive advantage, as most of the strategic human capital research postulates. On the
contrary, we argue that HRM practices can contribute to a firm's sustainable competitive advantage not only by
enhancing employees' ability, and offering motivation and opportunities, but also by shaping supply‐side and
demand‐side mobility constraints.
Introduction
The resource‐based view (RBV) (Penrose, 1959; Wernerfelt, 1984; Barney, 1991) arguably constitutes one of the
most popular theoretical frameworks in the management literature. RBV, suggesting that sustainable competitive
advantage can be achieved through valuable, rare, imperfectly imitable and non‐substitutable resources
(Barney, 1991), is especially appealing for both human resource management (HRM), particularly strategic human
resource management (SHRM) and strategy scholars. Thus, RBV has the potential to narrow the micro–macro divide
(e.g. Wright et al., 2001; Nyberg and Wright, 2015). The extent to which RBV has managed to bridge this gap is,
however, questionable.
On the one hand, SHRM scholars argue that HRM practices can be a source of sustainable competitive advantage
(e.g. Pfeffer, 1994; Becker and Gerhart, 1996; Boxall, 1996). HRM practices, when viewed as systems of
‘interrelated and internally consistent’ practices (MacDuffie, 1995: 198), can be unique, causally ambiguous,
synergistic and difficult to imitate (Lado and Wilson, 1994). In line with these conceptual arguments and despite
some substantive (Kaufman, 2010) and methodological concerns (Cappelli and Neumark, 2001), the SHRM
research has provided compelling evidence for the relationship between HRM practices and various firm‐level
outcomes (e.g. Arthur, 1994; Huselid, 1995; MacDuffie, 1995; Delery and Doty, 1996; Ichniowski et al., 1997;
Delery, 1998; Boselie et al., 2001; Combs et al., 2006).
© 2019 IJRAR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 2 www.ijrar.org (E-ISSN 2348-1269, P- ISSN 2349-5138)
IJRAR1AXP005 International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews (IJRAR) www.ijrar.org 79
On the other hand, advocates of the ‘human capital advantage’ (Boxall, 1998) postulate that ‘it is virtually impossible
for HR practices to be rare, inimitable and non‐substitutable’ (Wright et al., 1994: 318). Others contend that the
evidence for the impact of HRM practice on workforce behaviours and skills is inadequate. For instance, Wright et
al. argue that even though RBV constitutes an appealing underlying rationale for the SHRM literature, ‘as yet no
study has demonstrated anything close to a full causal model through which HR practices are purported to impact
firm performance’ (2001: 709). Thus, HRM practices are treated in most of the human capital literature, at best, as
simple ‘levers’ in the relationship between human capital resources and sustainable competitive advantage.
With the tension between the SHRM and human capital camps in mind, the purpose of this paper is twofold. We
begin with a brief review of the conceptual logic linking HRM practices and firm outcomes. The intent is not to
present a comprehensive review but rather to emphasise some of the major perspectives over the past three decades
regarding what has been termed as the HRM practices‐firm outcomes ‘black box’ (Becker and Gerhart, 1996;
Guest, 1997; Wright and Gardner, 2003; Wall and Wood, 2005). The ultimate goal of this journey through the
SHRM conceptual logic is to highlight the debate between SHRM and strategic human capital research regarding
the treatment of RBV. Acknowledging the strategic human capital literature has made important steps forward in
theory development by explicating the differences between basic concepts (e.g. human capital and human capital
resources) and offering complex models of human capital resources (e.g. Ployhart and Moliterno, 2011; Brymer et
al., 2014; Ployhart et al., 2014), we emphasise that the inability to test these complex human capital models, the
broader measurement issues and the imperfections of the labour market (e.g. Campbell et al., 2012b) constitute
important drawbacks in this research stream. We further argue that, given the criticality of the management of human
capital resources in creating and capturing value (e.g. Wright et al., 1994; Sirmon et al., 2007; Wright and
McMahan, 2011; Nyberg et al., 2014), the human capital stream of research brings us back to the importance of
HRM practices and systems in generating and sustaining competitive advantage.
The second objective of this paper is to add to this ongoing debate between SHRM and human capital scholars by
arguing that HRM practices are not simple levers that enable firms to generate sustainable competitive advantage.
Drawing on Campbell et al. (2012b) framework and the ability–motivation–opportunity (AMO) model
(Appelbaum et al., 2000; Purcell and Hutchinson, 2007), we offer a conceptual model that sheds light on how high‐
performance work practices (HPWPs) not only enhance employees' knowledge, skills, abilities and other
characteristics (KSAOs), and offer motivation and opportunities to leverage these resources, but also contribute in
shaping the supply‐side and demand‐side mobility constraints thought to enable firms to generate competitive
advantage through these resources. Thus, we propose that firms can gain competitive advantage only through the
interplay between human capital resources and HRM practices – each shaping and bringing about the other.
Review of the Conceptual Logic
This review of the conceptual logic linking HRM practices and firm outcomes focuses on identifying the major
perspectives, namely, early SHRM, behavioural perspective, AMO and RBV that have dominated the relevant
literature. Even though we discuss these four rationales as distinct from one another and in a specific order, in reality,
the evolution of the SHRM conceptual logic is more complex: their boundaries are not always clear, their
development is more simultaneous rather than sequential and they are complementary rather than conflicting.
Early strategic human resource management
During the late 1970s and early 1980s, the conceptual foundations of SHRM emerged. Dyer (1984), Fombrun et
al. (1984), Kochan et al. (1986) and Walker (1980) were among the pioneering scholars who linked HRM and
business strategy. For instance, Dyer (1984) presented a research agenda that explicitly acknowledged the role of
© 2019 IJRAR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 2 www.ijrar.org (E-ISSN 2348-1269, P- ISSN 2349-5138)
IJRAR1AXP005 International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews (IJRAR) www.ijrar.org 80
business strategy and HRM systems in influencing firm outcomes. This early work triggered seminal empirical
studies (e.g. Arthur, 1992, 1994; Huselid, 1995; MacDuffie, 1995; Delery and Doty, 1996) that provided evidence
for the HRM–firm performance relationship. This work, however, led to questions regarding the underlying logic of
this relationship, shifting the attention to the mediating mechanisms of the HRM‐performance ‘black box’ (Boxall
and Purcell, 2008). This ‘black box’ constitutes the underlying driving force for the theoretical and empirical
research that followed.
Behavioural perspective
One of the first efforts to describe the ‘black box’ of the HRM–performance relationship was the behavioural
perspective (e.g. Schuler and Jackson, 1987; Jackson et al., 1989). The behavioural perspective, grounded in
contingency theory (Fisher, 1989), suggests employee behaviour as the mediating mechanism between the HRM
practices and performance. HRM practices are viewed as a firm's most direct means of eliciting and sustaining
desired employee behaviours, such as task‐related behaviour and organisational citizenship behaviours (Coff and
Kryscynski, 2011).
The work of Schuler and Jackson (1987) pushed research beyond the universalistic approach which suggests there
are ‘best practices’ that yield superior organisational outcomes across situations (Delery and Doty, 1996). This
research stream (e.g. Lengnick‐Hall and Lengnick‐Hall, 1988; Gomez‐Mejia and Balkin, 1992), on the contrary,
adopts a contingency approach (Delery and Doty, 1996). This approach focuses on ‘external’ or ‘vertical’ fit (Baird
and Meshoulam, 1988; Wright and McMahan, 1992) highlighting the importance of alignment between HRM
practices and the broader identity and characteristics of the firm, including its strategy (Boxall, 1992). As an attempt
to explain how specific HRM activities can elicit strategically desired employee behaviours, the AMO framework
emerged.
Ability–motivation–opportunity model
Extending the behavioural approach and building on expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964; Lawler, 1971), the AMO
model (Appelbaum et al., 2000; Purcell and Hutchinson, 2007) evolved as an effort to better explicate how HRM
practices elicit desired outcomes. This model proposes that the relationship between HRM practices and employee‐
level and firm‐level outcomes is mediated by the direct effect these practices have on employees' abilities, motivation
and opportunities.
An important contribution of the AMO model is that it emphasises the need to look beyond vertical fit. The systems
approach that emerged suggests that it is the appropriate combination of different HRM practices rather than
individual practices that can ensure the enhancement of all three components of the AMO model and ultimately lead
to high employee or workforce performance. At the core of this rationale lies the concept of ‘internal’ or ‘horizontal’
fit (Baird and Meshoulam, 1988; Wright and McMahan, 1992) highlighting the significance of fit and interplay
among HRM practices (Wright and McMahan, 1992; Delery, 1998; Boxall and Purcell, 2000). This line of research
does not necessarily disregard the importance of vertical fit but usually adopts a configurational approach that
emphasises the need for both horizontal and vertical fit (Delery and Doty, 1996).
Along these lines, MacDuffie (1995) proposed the notion of ‘HRM bundles’ and demonstrated empirically that
systems of HRM practices can interact in complex ways to lead to superior performance. Extending this concept,
Becker et al. emphasised that firms should avoid ‘deadly combinations’ [HRM practices that in isolation lead to
beneficial firm outcomes but when taken as a group are a ‘recipe for disaster’ (1997: 43)] and aim for ‘powerful
connections’ (HRM practices with synergies or complementarities). Ichniowski et al. (1997), in a sample of steel
© 2019 IJRAR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 2 www.ijrar.org (E-ISSN 2348-1269, P- ISSN 2349-5138)
IJRAR1AXP005 International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews (IJRAR) www.ijrar.org 81
finishing lines, used cluster analysis to group HRM practices and demonstrated that plants using an ‘innovative’
HRM system (including practices such as flexible job assignments and incentive pay) were leading in terms of
productivity and product quality. More recently, Delery and Gupta (2016) conducted a more direct examination of
the systems perspective. The authors, on the basis of theory and comparing the results from different methodological
approaches, found that ability‐enhancing, motivation‐enhancing and opportunity‐enhancing HRM practices interact
in an intricate manner to influence organisational effectiveness. Thus, there seems to be strong support that AMO
helps explain establishment effectiveness. Given, however, that the ultimate goal of the SHRM literature is to link
HRM practices with firm‐level outcomes, SHRM researchers turned to strategy literature for conceptual rationales
that would legitimise the macro‐level nature of SHRM. RBV emerged as a conceptual approach that has the potential
to support SHRM in its attempt to bridge the micro–macro divide.
Resource‐based view
Resource‐based view (Penrose, 1959; Wernerfelt, 1984; Barney, 1991) has been consistently used, explicitly or
implicitly, as a backdrop in SHRM and strategy research. However, RBV is treated differently by HRM and strategy
researchers (e.g. Nyberg and Wright, 2015). Thus, despite its potential to narrow the gap between the micro and
macro research, RBV has triggered an ongoing debate: Are the HRM practices or the human capital resources, the
resources that have the potential to generate sustainable competitive advantage?
According to the first line of RBV research, HRM activities, when appropriately designed and implemented, have
the potential to generate and maintain competitive advantage (Lado and Wilson, 1994; Pfeffer, 1994; Becker and
Gerhart, 1996). MacDuffie and Kochan (1995), for instance, found that higher investments in training were
associated with higher levels of productivity. Snell and Dean (1992) showed that firms investing in selective staffing,
performance appraisals for developmental purposes and intensive training are more likely to successfully implement
sophisticated new technological systems. Overall, it can be inferred from the relevant literature (e.g. Lado and
Wilson, 1994; Becker and Gerhart, 1996) that competitive advantage may emerge when HRM activities focus on
developing firm‐specific skills (less transferable than generic skills), the HRM function invests in team building
(team outcomes are less imitable and transferable due to causal ambiguity and social complexity), and HRM
activities are combined in highly integrated and coherent bundles (harder to imitate).
Drawing on Osterman's (1987) differentiation of the workforce rationale, several authors (e.g. Delery and
Shaw, 2001; Becker et al., 2009) argued that firms should treat different groups of their workforce with different
sets of HRM practices. Lepak and Snell (1999) suggested that jobs can be differentiated on the basis
of value and uniqueness and each of the emergent job families should be treated with the corresponding employment
mode. It has also been suggested that firms should pay particular attention to employees possessing core
competencies or strategic capabilities, which are conceptualised as the resources leveraged to achieve strategic
objectives (Becker and Huselid, 2006), because the better management of the core workforce is more likely to have
the greatest impact on the firm's value creation (Delery and Shaw, 2001).
The second RBV‐based stream of literature advocates that human capital resources constitute the main source of
sustainable competitive advantage. Based on the argument that HRM practices can be replicated over time by
competitors (Wright et al., 1994; Chadwick and Dabu, 2009), human capital resources, via their unique
combinations (Ployhart et al., 2014), have the potential to generate sustainable competitive advantage (Nyberg et
al., 2014). The underlying assumption is that firm‐specificity constrains the mobility of the valued human capital
(Williamson, 1988; Hatch and Dyer, 2004). Some scholars (Barney and Wright, 1998; Campbell et al., 2012b),
however, have highlighted some concerns regarding this assumption.
© 2019 IJRAR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 2 www.ijrar.org (E-ISSN 2348-1269, P- ISSN 2349-5138)
IJRAR1AXP005 International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews (IJRAR) www.ijrar.org 82
In line with these concerns, Campbell et al. (2012b) attempted a more in‐depth analysis of the workings of the labour
market and the conditions under which human capital leads to competitive advantage. On the demand‐side, the
authors, in arguments consistent with Barney and Wright (1998), suggest that generic human capital, under specific
market conditions, can also generate competitive advantage. Given that employees usually possess both firm‐
specific and general human capital (Lazear, 2009), viewing firm specificity as an effective demand‐side mobility
constraint is a myopic approach because competitors might perceive as valuable what the focal firm considers as
generic (Campbell et al., 2012b). In addition, the labour market information imperfections (Chiang and
Chiang, 1990) might lead to undervaluing general or overvaluing firm‐specific human capital. On the supply‐side,
Campbell et al. (2012b) indicated two important imperfections. First, mobility costs go above and beyond search,
bargaining and switching costs; idiosyncratic preferences (e.g. geographic preferences and non‐pecuniary rewards)
and legal restrictions are also included in the costs employees encounter when switching employers. Second,
employees, due to information asymmetries, are not always able to appropriately estimate their employability (value
in the external labour market).
Another important concern about much of the human capital literature is the implicit assumption that individual
KSAOs are automatically translated into positive firm outcomes (Barnes et al., 2016). Human capital only has the
potential to generate sustainable competitive advantage – it has to be leveraged appropriately to do so (Wright and
McMahan, 2011; Nyberg et al., 2014). HRM practices can create and leverage human capital resources. As
Wright et al. noted, ‘sustained competitive advantage is achieved only by the interaction between the human capital
pool and the HR practices’ (1994: 320). The human capital approach, consequently, brings us back to square one –
the relationship between HRM practices and performance.
Following the calls for a more refined approach to the HRM‐firm performance relationship, in the next section, we
explore a model that builds upon the AMO model and the framework of Campbell et al. (2012b). The objective of
this model is not to offer new ideas in exploring the HRM practices–firm outcomes relationship, but rather to bridge
the SHRM literature and strategic human capital research by emphasising the criticality of HPWPs not only in
developing KSAOs, motivation and opportunities but also in building supply‐side and demand‐side mobility
constraints for human capital resources.
High‐Performance Work Practices, Human Capital and Sustainable Competive Advantage
As the journey through the conceptual logic of SHRM revealed, current research is divided in two streams: the
‘organisational processes advantage’ (stemming from superior organisational processes) and the ‘human capital
advantage’ (stemming from superior human capital resources) (Boxall, 1998). Compelling arguments and evidence
exist for both approaches. Proponents of the ‘organisational processes advantage’ have provided evidence that
HPWPs may, when aligned with the overall strategy and targeted towards the core workforce, generate the KSAOs,
motivation and opportunity required for achieving superior firm outcomes (e.g. Arthur, 1994; Huselid, 1995;
MacDuffie, 1995; Delery and Doty, 1996). An important deficit of this research, however, is the lack of consensus
regarding which practices should be considered as HPWPs (Combs et al., 2006; Kepes and Delery, 2007).
The human capital perspective, resting on the assertion that HPWPs can be replicated by competitors over time
(Wright et al., 1994; Chadwick and Dabu, 2009), suggests that the kernel of sustainable competitive advantage is
the human capital resources. Human capital is not only considered as the source of sustainable competitive advantage
simply because of its competencies but also because of its capacity to provide solutions to managerial dilemmas,
such as the recruitment of high‐quality applicants (Coff and Kryscynski, 2011). In support of the human capital
advantage perspective, the meta‐analysis of Crook et al. (2011) indicates that there is a positive relationship between
© 2019 IJRAR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 2 www.ijrar.org (E-ISSN 2348-1269, P- ISSN 2349-5138)
IJRAR1AXP005 International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews (IJRAR) www.ijrar.org 83
human capital and firm performance (the human capital‐global firm performance path coefficient was 0.10), which
is stronger for firm‐specific human capital.
The weak positive relationship between human capital and firm performance along with the concerns regarding the
effectiveness of the human capital isolating mechanisms (Campbell et al., 2012b) make it questionable whether the
human capital perspective is more informative in explaining and predicting superior firm performance than the
HPWPs perspective. In addition, some of the arguments that human capital scholars have used seem to be inherently
flawed. For instance, if HPWPs were that easy to imitate and given the accumulating evidence regarding the
relationship between specific HRM practices and firm performance, one would expect that by now such practices
would have been adopted by all firms. However, HRM practices are likely not as easily imitable as suggested. The
complexity and the causal linkages when looking at HRM practices as a system rather than isolated deployments
make it harder for competitors to successfully replicate them (Becker and Gerhart, 1996; Lado and Wilson, 1994).
Moreover, the argument that human capital resources are inimitable and less mobile can also be questioned. Human
capital is not an organisational ‘property’ (Coff, 1997; Castanias and Helfat, 2001; Ganco et al., 2015). Employees
can leave their employers at any time taking with them their valued human capital. Even when considering human
capital resources as the outcome of social complexity, they can still be transferred. There are numerous examples of
firms poaching entire teams from their competitors (Bordwin, 1999; Agarwal et al., 2016). More importantly, the
simple possession of high‐quality human capital resources would not necessarily yield superior outcomes. Human
capital resources without the HRM practices that generate the appropriate levels of motivation and opportunities
would be unable to lead to the desired outcomes.
In concert with arguments suggesting that added value rests on the interaction between individuals and their
environment (Felin and Hesterly, 2007), we agree that a firm's competitive advantage is contingent on the
combination between HRM practices and human capital resources. However, even though the complex human
capital models that have been proposed (e.g. Ployhart et al., 2014) offer a compelling story, when giving applicable
advice to managers on how to create competitive advantage, assuming that firm leadership has free will to adopt
different strategic and practices, it comes down to what is under their control: what can firm leaders do in order to
create sustainable competitive advantage? And the answer to this question may be found in the adoption systems of
HRM practices appropriate for their particular competitive environment: it is the HRM practices that can influence
the characteristics of a firm's human capital resources and determine the extent to which these resources will be
effectively combined with other resources and ultimately used to achieve the strategic goals of the firm. The role of
HRM systems, however, does not end there. HRM systems are also key in turning competitive advantage into
sustainable competitive advantage by influencing the workings of labour markets.
In the remainder of the paper, we briefly summarise the extant research regarding the effect of one such systems of
HRM practices, HPWPs, on human capital characteristics (Figure 1). We then focus more extensively on the often
neglected ability of firms to influence, to some extent, the supply‐side and demand‐side mobility constraints for
human capital through HRM practices (Figure 2). We employ Pfeffer's (1998) parsimonious list of seven HPWPs
(employment security, selective hiring, self‐managed teams or teamworking, high pay contingent on performance,
extensive training, reduction of status differences and information sharing) for illustrative purposes.
© 2019 IJRAR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 2 www.ijrar.org (E-ISSN 2348-1269, P- ISSN 2349-5138)
IJRAR1AXP005 International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews (IJRAR) www.ijrar.org 84
Figure 1
Open in figure viewerPowerPoint
The complex relations between high‐performance work practices (HPWPs) and the ability–motivation–opportunity
framework
Figure 2
Open in figure viewerPowerPoint
The complex relations between high‐performance work practices (HPWPs) and the supply‐side and demand‐side
mobility constraints
High‐performance work practices and human capital characteristics
Despite the lack of consensus regarding the HRM practices that are or should be included under the umbrella term
HPWPs (Boselie et al., 2005; Kepes and Delery, 2007), there is a common thread across the different proposed sets
of practices: they address the aspects of the AMO model (Kehoe and Wright, 2013). In other words, HRM practices
that combine as HPWPs can be viewed as ability‐enhancing or skill‐enhancing, motivation‐enhancing and
opportunity‐enhancing or empowerment‐enhancing (Huselid, 1995; Combs et al., 2006; Subramony, 2009).
© 2019 IJRAR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 2 www.ijrar.org (E-ISSN 2348-1269, P- ISSN 2349-5138)
IJRAR1AXP005 International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews (IJRAR) www.ijrar.org 85
First, HPWPs, such as extensive training, compensation, selective hiring and teamwork, can have an impact on the
workforce's ability (Subramony, 2009), which is conceptualised as the employees' KSAOs (Delery and Shaw, 2001).
By employing extensive and thorough recruitment and selection processes, firms are able to select highly valued
human capital and through training firm‐specific, and generic human capital can be enhanced (Arthur et al., 2003;
Takeuchi et al., 2007; Subramony, 2009). Less obvious but not less important are the effects of pay and teamwork
on the ability of human capital. In terms of pay, a pay‐for‐skill compensation system motivates employees to engage
in activities that enhance their KSAOs (Gomez‐Mejia and Balkin, 1992; Youndt et al., 1996). Additionally,
consistent with the sorting effect of pay (e.g. Cadsby et al., 2007), job candidates who believe they do not meet the
KSAOs‐requirements are likely to self‐select out of the process, enhancing the quality of the applicant pool. Finally,
when working in teams, employees develop social connections that enable the exchange of ideas and perspectives
and the correction of errors, which can be considered as learning processes (Argyris and Schön, 1978;
Edmondson, 1999) that enhance employees' ability and the firm's knowledge creation capability (Nahapiet and
Ghoshal, 1998; Smith et al., 2005).
The second aspect of the AMO model, namely, motivation, reflects the direction of the effort that the workforce
exerts (Subramony, 2009). On the basis of social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), when employees perceive that their
contributions are valued, they are more likely to reciprocate by engaging in valued behaviours. As such, high‐
compensation contingent on performance, employment security and the adoption of self‐managed teams can be
argued to comprise the motivation‐enhancing HPWPs. The obvious link among motivation and pay for performance
is well established by a plethora of conceptual and empirical studies (e.g. Bartol and Locke, 2000; Stajkovic and
Luthans, 2003; Rynes et al., 2005; Peterson and Luthans, 2006). Employment security, when valued by employees,
can also increase employees' motivation (Pfeffer, 1998; Gong and Chang, 2008). Finally, inherent in the nature of
self‐managed teams are the concepts of effective peer control and enhanced sense of responsibility (Pfeffer, 1998).
This context of constant peer evaluation and accountability can be argued to enhance employees' motivation.
Opportunity or empowerment, the last aspect of AMO, refers to the extent to which employees have at their disposal
all the necessary resources for completing job‐relevant tasks as well as the discretion to decide how to perform tasks
(Delery and Shaw, 2001). Opportunity, of course, does not stem only from HRM practices. Organisational structures
and control mechanisms also influence opportunity. For the purposes of this paper, we focus only on the opportunity‐
enhancing HPWPs, such as sharing of information, reduction of status differences and self‐managed teams. Sharing
information with employees and minimising status differences enhance communication among employees
(Pfeffer, 1998), while self‐managed teams offer autonomy to employees in terms of determining how their outcome‐
related tasks will be performed (Pfeffer, 1998; Mathieu et al., 2006). Thus, these three HPWPs create an
organisational climate and describe an organisational structure that not only welcomes but also expects employees'
involvement and participation in influencing work processes and decisions, which have been shown to be associated
with superior work outcomes (Subramony, 2009).
As briefly discussed earlier, the relationship between specific HRM practices and organisational outcomes via the
enhancement of ability, motivation and opportunity is well established, particularly at the individual employee level.
What has not been sufficiently addressed yet is how, within the context of a labour market, firms can retain their
valued, motivated and empowered human capital resources. In the following section, we take this step by
conceptually exploring the potential of HRM practices to shape supply‐side and demand‐side mobility constraints.
High‐performance work practices and human capital mobility constraints
© 2019 IJRAR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 2 www.ijrar.org (E-ISSN 2348-1269, P- ISSN 2349-5138)
IJRAR1AXP005 International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews (IJRAR) www.ijrar.org 86
The HPWPs approach and the human capital perspective, despite their differences, have a very important deficit in
common: they either ignore the workings of the labour market or they rely on the efficiency of questionable isolating
mechanisms (i.e. firm specificity). It is important, therefore, to acknowledge, as we did previously, that human
capital, unlike other resources cannot be ‘owned’ (Coff, 1997; Brymer et al., 2014). In order for an employer to
utilise the KSAOs of its workforce, a mutually agreed upon employment relationship is required (Roth and
Sotomayor, 1992). This temporally bounded employment relationship along with the mobility of employees
constitutes important barriers towards creating and sustaining competitive advantage. Firms, however, are not
defenceless against the forces of the labour market. In order to understand how firms can guard their human capital
resources, it is important to connect and explicitly indicate how HRM practices help firms in shaping supply‐side
and demand‐side mobility constraints (Campbell et al., 2012b). The question then becomes: Which HPWPs can
increase the retention of the valued human capital by influencing mobility barriers?
Supply‐side mobility constraints
As previously discussed, there are two main supply‐side mobility constraints (Campbell et al., 2012b): information
asymmetries in the labour market, which limit employees' ability to accurately evaluate their external labour market
value, and mobility costs (i.e. search, bargaining, and switching costs, costs associated with idiosyncratic preferences
and non‐pecuniary rewards and legal restrictions). Consequently, firms can retain their valued human capital through
HPWPs that minimise employees' willingness to specify their market value and shape mobility costs in such a way
that switching employers will be cost‐ineffective. Before discussing which HPWPs constrain the supply‐side
employee mobility, it is important to clarify two basic underlying assumptions. First, our focus is on voluntary
turnover or the quit rate. Second, as Coff and Raffiee (2015) underscored, in terms of the workings of the labour
market, employees' perceptions and perceptions the market holds regarding a firm's human capital are more
important than reality.
We expect that HPWPs can influence supply‐side mobility constraints via two routes: employer attractiveness and
job‐embeddedness. Employer attractiveness has been described as the extent to which individuals perceive a firm as
a great place to work (Chapman et al., 2005), and it is linked with Person‐Organisation (P‐O) fit perceptions
(Uggerslev et al., 2012), as well as the inducements and investments that the firm offers (Tsui et al., 1997). Job‐
embeddedness, conceptualised as a constellation of financial and non‐financial (psychological and social) factors
(Mitchell et al., 2001; Holtom et al., 2008), has been argued to result in lower quit rates (Crossley et al., 2007; Lee et
al., 2014). Specifically, job‐embeddedness shapes a ‘web’ in which the employee can be ‘stuck’. This ‘web’ is
shaped via three mechanisms: links (formal and informal connections with people inside and outside of the firm),
fit (perception regarding the value and demands‐needs congruence with the focal firm) and sacrifice (psychological,
social and/or material cost associated with leaving the firm).
Undoubtedly, there are a number of constructs that we could use to explain the potential impact of HPWPs on
supply‐side mobility constraints. For instance, organisational commitment and job satisfaction are two of the most
oft‐cited predictors of employee turnover intentions and actual turnover (Mathieu and Zajac, 1990; Eisenberger et
al., 1997; Meyer and Allen, 1997; Kwon et al., 2010). However, job‐embeddedness, unlike organisational
commitment and job satisfaction, encapsulates not only on‐the‐job but also off‐the‐job aspects (Mitchell et
al., 2001). In a similar manner, even though employer attractiveness can be argued to partially overlap with the
concept of job‐embeddedness, it adds a unique feature: it reflects an individual's perceptions before he or she enters
the employment relationship.
© 2019 IJRAR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 2 www.ijrar.org (E-ISSN 2348-1269, P- ISSN 2349-5138)
IJRAR1AXP005 International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews (IJRAR) www.ijrar.org 87
Firms can influence the likelihood of turnover even before the employment relationship begins through selective
hiring processes. For instance, Huselid (1995) showed a link between turnover and selective staffing practices (as
part of a system of practices). By ensuring a high‐value congruence between the employee and the firm, as well as
a fit between the requirements and the offerings of the firm and the abilities and needs of the employees
(Kristof, 1996), employees are less likely to leave their ‘ideal’ employer (Kristof‐Brown et al., 2005). These
enhanced fit perceptions are also associated with employees' perceptions regarding the complementarities between
their own abilities and other firm characteristics (e.g. values, structures and other resources). Such perceptions
further enhance job‐embeddedness via the belief that employees can reach their full potential only within the specific
context.
Despite the mixed empirical findings regarding the relationship between training and voluntary turnover (Gardner et
al., 2011), training has the potential of increasing the supply‐side mobility barriers for human capital. As Tharenou et
al. (2007) conclude in their review of the relevant literature, training can reduce voluntary turnover when it is
‘framed as a positive organisational contribution to employees' human capital development’ (262). Firm investments
in training trigger a series of employees' perceptions regarding their employer and their employability. Training
signals to employees that the firm cares about them, values their contributions and is interested in their development
and continued employment (Pfeffer, 1998), enhancing employees' perceptions of employer attractiveness (Tsui et
al., 1997). Participation in employer‐sponsored training and developmental activities also enhances employees'
perceptions that they are investing time and effort in developing firm‐specific human capital. Employees are
expected, therefore, to be more embedded with their current employer and less willing to search for alternative
employment fearing that the time and effort they have invested in developing firm‐specific KSAOs will be in vain
and not appreciated by the external labour market.
High‐compensation contingent on performance is another of Pfeffer's (1998) proposed HPWPs that influences
perceived employer attractiveness and job‐embeddedness. Conceptual and empirical papers (e.g. Osterman, 1987;
Shaw et al., 1998; Conroy et al., 2014) have linked pay satisfaction and turnover. Pay‐for‐performance, when
appropriately designed and implemented, rewards high performers who will be more satisfied and less likely to leave
(McEvoy and Cascio, 1987; Nyberg, 2010). In addition, when pay‐for‐performance is properly communicated, then
the pay dispersion among high‐performing and low‐performing employees has a negative relationship with the
turnover of high performers (Shaw and Gupta, 2007). Thus, firms offering pay‐for‐performance will be perceived
as attractive by those employees that firms wish to retain: high performers. The willingness of high performers to
terminate their employment relationship will be further reduced when employees perceive that their high
performance and their subsequent high compensation are embedded in the specific firm (e.g. complementarities with
other firm‐specific resources).
Perceived employer attractiveness and job‐embeddedness are also expected to be enhanced by employment security.
Job security, according to existing research (e.g. Arnold and Feldman, 1982; Luna‐Arocas and Camps, 2007), is
negatively related to turnover intentions and actual turnover via various mediating mechanisms, such as affective
commitment. As Shaw et al. (1998) emphasised, when a firm does not offer job stability, the perceived attachment
with the firm is diminished. Inherent in the concept of job security is also the notion of the continuance of one's
income and employment in the future. Employees who decide to explore alternative employment opportunities face
the risk of losing this sense of stability (Pfeffer, 1998).
Finally, sharing of information, teamwork (self‐managed teams) and reduced status differences are expected to
increase the supply‐side mobility constraints via perceptions of embeddedness. First, sharing of information can be
© 2019 IJRAR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 2 www.ijrar.org (E-ISSN 2348-1269, P- ISSN 2349-5138)
IJRAR1AXP005 International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews (IJRAR) www.ijrar.org 88
viewed as a signal by employees regarding the extent to which the firm trusts them (Pfeffer, 1998), and trust, in turn,
can create a link between employees and the firm that enhances perceived job‐embeddedness (Mitchell et al., 2001).
Similarly, firms emphasising teamwork and reduced status differences are likely to create an organisational
environment that nurtures the development of social ties among employees and, ultimately, increase embeddedness
perceptions and decrease voluntary turnover (Gardner et al., 2011). These HPWPs boost the sense of common fate
which further cultivates employees' attachment with their coworkers and the firm (Pfeffer, 1998).
Proposition 1.HPWPs create supply‐side mobility constraints through increasing employer attractiveness and/or job‐
embeddedness perceptions.
Demand‐side mobility constraints
Demand‐side mobility constraints are arguably less explored, but no less important than supply‐side mobility
constraints. On the demand‐side, competitors ‘show their teeth’: they engage in tactics, such as aggressive
recruitment and extending ‘unsolicited offers’ to their rivals' employees (Rynes and Barber, 1990; Lee et al., 2008),
in order to deplete their rivals from their valued human capital (Finlay and Coverdill, 2002; Rao and Drazin, 2002).
Gardner (2005), for instance, showed that, in a sample of 661 companies in the software industry, 135 attribute the
loss of human capital resources to their competitors' purposeful depletion tactics. The need to establish effective
demand‐side mobility constraints is further highlighted by the fact that firms have sometimes engaged in illegal anti‐
poaching pacts (e.g. the case of Adobe, Apple, Google and Intel). It is highly critical, therefore, for firms to employ
legal strategies not only for ensuring that their human capital stays with them but also for safeguarding, to the extent
that it is feasible, their valued human capital from being ‘stolen’ by rival firms. HPWPs have the potential to assist
firms in building demand‐side mobility constraints.
As noted in the case of the supply‐side mobility barriers, the workings of the demand‐side of the labour market is
highly contingent on perceptions (Coff and Raffiee, 2015). Thus, even though firms have important limitations in
directly influencing demand‐side mobility constraints, we argue they can do so by shaping the external market's
perceptions regarding their human capital's firm specificity, as well as the complementarities between their human
capital and other firm‐specific resources. Firm specificity signifies that the particular human capital is not readily
deployable in other firms (Coff and Kryscynski, 2011), thus decreasing the exchange value in the external labour
market (Klein et al., 1978). As Campbell et al. (2012b) emphasised, however, the labour market does not always
hold accurate perceptions about the nature of the human capital. From a demand‐side perspective, we are not
interested in the actual firm specificity of the human capital but the perceptions that competitors hold. Given the
importance of complementarities (Teece, 1986; Prahalad and Hamel, 1990; Dess and Shaw, 2001; Campbell et
al., 2012a), we argue that the synergies between human capital and other firm assets (e.g. organisational culture and
structure, and other human capital) and, in particular, the market's perceptions about these complementarities (Coff
and Raffiee, 2015) raise demand‐side mobility barriers. We propose three HPWPs that have the potential to influence
the demand‐side of the labour market via the market's perceptions of human capital's firm specificity and
complementarities: teamwork, investment in extensive training and selective hiring.
When human capital is embedded in teams not only the ‘output is more than the sum of the separable outputs of
each cooperating resource’ but also ‘it is difficult, if not impossible, to identify the specific source of competitive
advantage’ (Barney and Wright, 1998: 39). Studies have indicated that when rivals have managed to attract the focal
firm's star performers, the latters' post‐mobility performance declines (Groysberg and Lee, 2009), but this decrease
in performance is less pronounced when whole teams are poached (Groysberg et al., 2008; Campbell et al., 2014).
Poaching entire teams, while not impossible, can be particularly costly. Thus, firms having a reputation for
© 2019 IJRAR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 2 www.ijrar.org (E-ISSN 2348-1269, P- ISSN 2349-5138)
IJRAR1AXP005 International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews (IJRAR) www.ijrar.org 89
emphasising teamwork send the signal to the external labour market that their superior performance is the outcome
of complementarities rather than a few star employees. These firms' practices simultaneously decrease their
competitors' ability to appropriately value the firm‐specific and generic human capital that each employee holds.
As mentioned previously, the information asymmetry that characterises the labour market (Campbell et al., 2012b)
forces competitors to rely on signals to estimate the nature of the human capital of the focal firm (Coff and Raffiee,
2015). Firms, therefore, by signalling that their employees possess firm‐specific human capital can shape the
perceptions their competitors hold and lessen the likelihood that their employees will be poached. In intensifying
competitors' perceptions regarding the firm specificity of the focal firm's human capital, selective hiring and
extensive training can be useful. Firms that engage in highly selective hiring processes can create the reputation that
they hire only employees who either have firm‐specific KSAOs or the ability to develop firm specificity. This
reputation can be further enhanced when the firm invests heavily in training. On the basis of the aforementioned
arguments, it is proposed that
Proposition 2.HPWPs create demand‐side mobility constraints via the labour market's perceptions regarding the firm
specificity of human capital and the complementarities of the human capital with other firm assets.
Discussion
The so‐called ‘micro–macro divide’ (e.g. Molloy et al., 2011) is illustrated vividly in the RBV literature. On the one
hand, the SHRM perspective argues and provides some evidence that HPWPs are responsible for generating and
leveraging the appropriate human capital resources that lead to superior organisational outcomes (e.g. Arthur, 1994;
Huselid, 1995; MacDuffie, 1995; Delery and Doty, 1996; Ichniowski et al., 1997). Thus, HRM practices and
systems can be considered the source of sustained competitive advantage (Lado and Wilson, 1994; Pfeffer, 1994;
Becker and Gerhart, 1996). On the other hand, strategy scholars make compelling arguments that HRM practices
are transferable and imitable and, consequently, cannot generate sustainable competitive advantage (Wright et
al., 1994; Chadwick and Dabu, 2009). Proponents of this perspective, acknowledging the multilevel nature of human
capital within the firm (e.g. Fulmer and Ployhart, 2014), advocate that human capital and its three isolating
mechanisms, namely, firm specificity, social complexity and causal ambiguity (e.g. Williamson, 1975; Lippman and
Rumelt, 1982; Barney, 1991), enable firms to generate and sustain competitive advantage.
In this paper, we shift the attention away from the ‘Is it the chicken or the egg?’ question. We argue that, even though
the human capital perspective provides compelling arguments, there are some inherent flaws in the underlying
rationale. For instance, as discussed previously, empirical evidence and theoretical arguments exist that question the
effectiveness of human capital isolating mechanisms. In addition, models indicating how human capital resources
are built via the combinations and complementarities among individual human capital (e.g. Ployhart et al., 2014) are
very difficult or impossible to empirically test. Finally, the argument that HRM practices cannot be the source of
competitive advantage due to their imitable nature (e.g. Wright et al., 1994; Chadwick and Dabu, 2009) is rather
tenuous considering the variability in the HRM practices that different firms adopt and implement. Even though this
variability has been attributed by some scholars (e.g. Kaufman, 2012) to the theoretical and empirical flaws of the
SHRM literature that have only an anaemic convincing power over practitioners, we argue that the aetiologies behind
these variations are different. It is our belief that HRM practices, or at least coherent systems of HRM practices,
meet to some extent the criteria (as summarised by Ployhart, 2012) that contribute to a resource's inimitability: social
complexity (their interplay with a firm's human capital generated value), interconnectedness with other resources
(the value of an HRM practice is highly contingent on the other practices, the structure, the human capital, the culture
© 2019 IJRAR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 2 www.ijrar.org (E-ISSN 2348-1269, P- ISSN 2349-5138)
IJRAR1AXP005 International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews (IJRAR) www.ijrar.org 90
and other resources of the firm), causal ambiguity (competitors do not necessarily understand the importance of the
specific practices) and path dependency (their development and specific characteristics have followed a specific
trajectory over time within a specific firm). We contend, therefore, that in bridging these two approaches it may be
more practical to focus on HRM practices and systems and the resources they create. Specifically, we suggest that
HPWPs not only build firm‐specific and/or general KSAOs and provide necessary motivation and opportunity for
employees to utilise their human capital but also aid in shaping supply‐side and demand‐side labour marker mobility
constraints.
Our intent in this paper was to simply highlight and stimulate thinking regarding the issues that reinforce the divide
between SHRM and strategic human capital and to provide a conceptual model that summarises the importance of
HPWPs. In doing so, we made a few assumptions. For instance, we utilised in our model Pfeffer's (1998) list of
seven HPWPs, but there is no consensus in the relevant literature regarding which practices should be considered as
HPWPs (e.g. Becker and Gerhart, 1996; Kepes and Delery, 2007). Optimistically, other researchers will build on
this conceptual model and explore the role of other HRM practices. Similarly, one could argue there are numerous
other constructs, besides employer attractiveness, job‐embeddedness, firm specificity and complementarities that
could be considered as the mediating mechanisms between HPWPs and supply‐side and demand‐side labour marker
mobility constraints. Finally, multiple arguments can be made in support of or against the suggested links between
specific HPWPs and the mediating constructs. However, the purpose of our model was not to offer novel or
undeniable ideas but rather to demonstrate how the strategic human capital and SHRM literatures constitute two
perspectives that, in tandem, offer a better understanding of the same phenomenon thereby paving the path for future
research.
It is our conviction that the intersection between strategic human capital and SHRM research offers fertile ground
for future conceptual and empirical research. One important question that calls for research involves the
identification of the HRM practices that can actually generate the mobility constraints necessary for firms to retain
their valued human capital resources. As Barney and Wright (1998) and Campbell et al. (2012b) have argued,
regardless of the stance that we take, human capital's potential to generate sustained competitive advantage is
contingent upon labour market dynamics. Firms, however, are not defenceless against the workings of the labour
market. Firms, as we illustrate in our model, have a palette of HRM practices that can be used to shape, to some
extent, human capital resources and mobility barriers. Which specific HRM practices are more effective in shaping,
each is still an important topic for research. These research questions become more complicated considering that
HRM practices must play multiple roles: enhance ability, motivation and opportunity while, at the same time,
influence the employees' willingness to terminate the employment relationship and the perceptions that the rivals
hold regarding the value of the focal firm's human capital. An additional untapped research question meriting
exploration is whether firms are able to deploy and should deploy differentiated HRM practices for influencing the
mobility barriers for different groups of human capital. Following Lepak and Snell's (1999) differentiated workforce
arguments, one could argue that firms should utilise different practices for the different workforce groups in order
to enhance the mobility barriers for the employees that they wish to retain and relaxing these constraints for those
employees who are less important for the firm's success. To date, there has been very little research in this area.
Future research should also explore the relative effectiveness of investing in practices with the intent of enhancing
supply‐side and demand‐side constraints. As we discuss in our conceptual model, firms may be less able to influence
demand‐side mobility constraints. One of the most commonly used arguments associated with the demand‐side
labour mobility is that it is the visibility of high‐performers that enhances the likelihood of receiving alternative job
offers (e.g. Allen and Griffeth, 2001). It has been proposed, therefore, that firms can minimise the visibility of high
© 2019 IJRAR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 2 www.ijrar.org (E-ISSN 2348-1269, P- ISSN 2349-5138)
IJRAR1AXP005 International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews (IJRAR) www.ijrar.org 91
performers by embedding them in work groups. Today, however, the use of social networks, such as LinkedIn,
where individuals keep their networks informed regarding their roles and responsibilities within their teams and so
on, makes it questionable whether teams are an effective mechanism for weakening the perceptions that specific
employees drive their performance. Simultaneously, other practices that enhance supply‐side mobility constraints,
such as high compensation and promotions, constitute signals of high performance to the external labour market
(e.g. Waldman, 1990) and, essentially, increase the visibility of high performers. Consequently, it would be
particularly interesting from a research and practice standpoint to explore the impact of different HPWPs on both
supply‐side and demand‐side mobility constraints.
In this paper, we have argued for more attention to HRM practices, and systems, given they provide a more practical
approach for firms to gain, create and utilise strategic human capital resources and, ultimately, contribute to a firm's
competitive advantage. In the end, although, it is difficult to untangle the many factors that might influence
competitive advantage, and we have to acknowledge the critical role of human capital resources. For instance, one
can argue that a firm may need strategic human capital resources within the firm to provide the knowledge to adopt
HPWPs. In other words, a firm must have human capital management expertise to adopt appropriate human capital
management strategies that will ultimately create strategic human capital resources elsewhere within the firm. This
causal chain, however, is not a prerequisite for firms to achieve competitive advantage, given that there is at least a
small possibility that a firm might adopt the appropriate HRM practices by accident or luck. However, the endeavour
to provide an answer to the debate of whether it is the HRM practices or the human capital resources that have the
potential of creating sustainable competitive advantage is no different from the vain and unfruitful attempt to resolve
the ‘chicken or egg’ dilemma.
CONCLUSION
Finally, it should be clear from our review of the literature that the field is going in circles as it is evolving. Early
SHRM researchers emphasised HRM practices and systems as levers to achieve firm performance. This early
research was followed by attempts to explain the ‘black box’ between HRM practices and firm performance. What
has emerged is the acknowledgement that human capital resources are at least partially the mediating link between
HRM practices and firm performance. This, however, is nothing new to SHRM researchers who voiced this
relationship from the very beginning (Barney and Wright, 1998). The field is now engaged in an exploration of how
such human capital resources could lead to competitive advantage. We argue that this actually brings the field full
circle to the ‘basic’ quest of specifying the HRM practices and their combinations that are associated with higher
levels of organisational effectiveness. Expectantly, this time, researchers will better explore the ideas behind HRM
systems proposed in the 1990s. For instance, the often used indices of HRM practices are unlikely to uncover the
complexity in HRM system–human capital resources relationships. The idea that ‘more HRM’, as Kaufman and
Miller (2011) frame it, leads to better performance is certainly not what SHRM researchers have advocated, even if
it appears to be what they have measured. The idea is that higher firm performance is achieved by having the
appropriate system of HRM practices for the firm's particular strategic context. Along with other scholars
(e.g. Chadwick, 2010; Delery and Gupta, 2016), we hope that future research will explore, on the basis of strong
theory, the intricate interactions among practices. It is this complexity that is important to understand, and something
that the SHRM research to date has not explored well. In conclusion, RBV has the potential to generate truly
informative knowledge that will narrow the micro–macro divide. In doing so, however, as Kaufman (2015)
emphasised SHRM scholars need to broaden the paradigms they use by incorporating other approaches, such as
economic theory, in order to overcome some major problematic areas in the application of RBV in the SHRM
© 2019 IJRAR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 2 www.ijrar.org (E-ISSN 2348-1269, P- ISSN 2349-5138)
IJRAR1AXP005 International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews (IJRAR) www.ijrar.org 92
literature (e.g. potential employee relations ramifications resulting from HR practices that aim at capturing human
capital rents.
top related