shrm perspectives
TRANSCRIPT
SHRM Perspectives
Universalistic Perspective
Proponents of the Universalistic view of SHRM propose a best practice approach to SHRM. According to
these researchers, some HR practices are always better than other it is therefore necessary that organizations adopt
these practices. Pfeffer (1994) is one of the supporters of the universalistic view of SHRM. He argued that there is a
set of interrelated HR practices that characterize achieving competitive success through HR management. Under the
universalistic approach, SHRM practices are those that contribute to the achievement of higher organizational
performance, regardless of the organization’s strategy. The universalistic approach is also called the ‘best practice’
approach. Proponents of the best practice approach argues that a single high performance human resource strategy
enhances effectiveness regardless of organizational goals, work systems, or context (Pfefeer 1998).
Within the area of SHRM, there are significant researches that support the notion that certain HR practices
are linked to organizational performance. In a research conducted by Arthur (1994), he found that HR practices that
put emphasis on the enhancement of employee commitment such as employee empowerment, comprehensive
training, and strategic compensation were connected to higher performance. The best practice approach to SHRM
according to Pfeffer and Veiga (1999) are employment security; selective hiring; self-managed teams and
decentralization; comparatively high compensation contingent on organizational performance, extensive training,
reduction of status differences and information sharing. Considered as the simplest SHRM theory, the universalistic
approach implies that the relationship between a given independent variable (HR practice) and a dependent variable
(performance improvement) is universal across different organizations. The universalistic view of SHRM stresses that
there is one best way to manage human resources. Strategic HRM is the process of transforming HRM practices into
a limited set pf ‘best practices’ HRM procedures and policies.
Definition of SHRM based on Universalistic Perspective
Pfeffer (1994; 1998) argues that employees work both harder and smarter today. According to him this is
because of the effective HR practices that are emerging as organizations seek to attract, motivate and retain
employees that increase performance. According to the universalistic view proposed by Pfefffer, employees work
harder because of greater job involvement, greater peer pressure for results, and the economic gains based on high
performance. Employees work smarter because they can use their knowledge and skills, acquired through training
and development in the job themselves, in getting the work done. Based on the universalistic perspective I can say
that SHRM is a process of finding and applying best HR practices in order to improve the performance of the firm.
Disadvantages of the Universalistic Perspective
Work in the universalistic perspective is largely unconcerned with interaction effect among organizational
variables and implicitly assumes that the effect of HR variables are additive. Such a reductive, linear view of an
organizational system ignores the notion of system-level resources. The insights that are provided by the
universalistic perspective are often regarded as limited and of no significant value. The universalistic perspective also
negates the notion that sustainable competitive advantage can be achieved through differentiation in the firm’s
resources, strategies and policies. Practices that are universally implemented would have similar rather than different
effects on competing firms. The universalistic perspective have a tendency to lead to ‘sameness’ across firms.
Contingency Perspective
Proponents of the contingency perspective in SHRM argue that a firm can be effective if its HR practices and
strategy are aligned with other aspects and strategies of the firm. Contingency perspective is also called ‘fit-
alignment’ perspective. There are two forms of fit alignment – vertical and horizontal. The vertical alignment (external
alignment) is the level of alignment between the components of the organization’s human resource strategy and core
features of its business strategy. Horizontal fit (internal alignment) measures the level of alignment among
components of the organization’s HR strategies such as recruitment, selection, training and compensation.
Perhaps, the most notable argument in favor of the fit perspective was presented by Baird and Meshoulam
(1988). They argued that HR must be closely integrated into the planning process of the firm. In addition they also
advocated the idea that a firm can achieve success if it is able to develop HR policies and practices that complement
and support both other HR policies and practices and the other elements of the organization’s strategic plan. Two
types of fit were identified by these theorists. These are internal and external. Internal fit refers to the level of
that human resource practices complement and support each other. External fit on the other hand, refers to
the level of complement and support between HR practices and other elements of the strategic plan. The contingency
perspective according to Radcliffe (2005) assumes that business performance will be improved when there is
consistency or fit between the business strategy and HR policies. It has been argued that HRM practices that are not
aligned and consistent with organizational strategy and which conflict with other HRM practices can restrain both
individual and organizational performance.
There are several benefits that are attributed to the fit perspective on SHRM. Jackson et al (1989) suggested
that firms that seek to pursue innovation as a strategy used HRM practices that will complement the strategy.
Definition of SHRM based on Fit Perspective
Based on contingency or fit perspective, SHRM can be defined as the integration of HR practices and policies
to the overall organizational objectives with the aim of improving performance. Ahmed et al (2006) defines SHRM as
the process of linking the human resource functions with the strategic objectives of the organization in order to
produce better performance. Buyens and de Vos (1991) on the other hand defines SHRM as the linking of HRM with
the strategic goals and objectives of the organization in order to achieve a progressive business performance and
achieve an organizational structure that promotes innovation and flexibility. The goals and objectives of HRM are
aligned with the strategic objectives and plans of the organization. The role of HRM is to determine the human
resources needed to support strategic objectives and to ensure that employees are selected, trained, evaluated, and
rewarded in ways that further the achievement of business objectives. Strategic HRM is frequently described as a
linear, balanced process that begins with the identification of goals that will guide human resource practices. The
integration of the HR programs with the goals of the organization will result to the organization’s increased value.
The recruitment, compensation,performance appraisal, promotion, training and other functions are designed and
managed so that they work towards the strategic objectives of the firm (p.92). Strategic HRM has the purpose of
improving the way that human resources are managed within firms. The main objective of strategic HRM is to
improve organizational performance as judged by its impact on the organization’s declared corporate strategy
(Brewster et al 2004, p. 29). Strategic human resources management means accepting the HRM function as a
strategic partner in both the formulation of the organization’s strategies and the implementation of those strategies
through activities such as recruiting, selecting, training, and rewarding personnel (Sims 2002, p. 27).
Disadvantages of the Contingency or Fit Perspective
The fit perspective proposes that there should be a strategic integration between HR policies and practices
and organizational strategies. Strategic integration or fit has three dimensions. These are the integration or fit of
human resources policies with business strategy; the integration or complementarity and consistency of mutuality
employment policies aimed at generating employee commitment, flexibility and quality; and the internalization of the
importance of human resources on the part of line managers. Integration with business strategy can be concerned
with developing HR polices the fit either the organization’s stage of development or its orientation. The fundamental
strategic management problem according to Tichy et al (1982) is to keep the strategy, structure and human resource
dimensions of the organization in direct alignment. One of the weaknesses of the fit perspective is the lack of
evidences that a tight fit leads to positive outcomes. Lengnick-Hall and Lengnick-Hall (1990) also argues that the
concept of fit implies inflexibility and rigidity which could, in themselves, be detrimental to organizational outcomes
(cited in Gratton et al 1999, pp. 43-44).
Resource-Based Perspective
Looking at the firm in a resourced-based view has given birth to the idea that Human Resource can be a
source of competitive advantage for the firm. The importance of HR as a source of competitive advantage sprung up
from the resourced-based view of the firm, which presents a notion that firms develop competitive advantages
through valuable and inimitable internal resources.
The resource-based view is a conceptualization of firms as unique bundles of accumulated tangible and
intangible resource stocks. Resource stocks are defined as internal attributes, including assets, capabilities,
processes, routines, and knowledge, that are tied semi-permanently to or controlled by a firm (Barney
1991; Wernerfelt 1984 cited in Niehaus 1995). Examples of resources according to Niehaus (1995) are brand names,
in-house knowledge of technology, employment of skilled personnel, trade contracts, machinery, efficient procedures
and capital.
The resource-based view played a significant role in the development of Strategic Human Resource
Management. The resource-based view is considered as a theoretical starting point for empirical investigations by
economists, strategists, and HRM researchers. Resource-based view is of significant interest to economists as they
seek to determine how firms apply and combine resources in order to achieve competitive advantage, how firms
sustain their competitive advantage, what is the nature of rents and how heterogeneity originated (Peteraf 1993).
Strategists also consider resource-based view as essential because it allows them to extend and enhance traditional
models of strategy formulation and implementation. Resource-based arguments were used by Prahalad and Hamel
(1990) in describing the significance of core competencies and how competencies are enhanced as they are applied.
HRM researcher also value resource-based theories because it give them a foundation in developing theories in the
field of HR.
The focus of the resource-based model is on the strategic significance of internal strengths. The internal
strengths of a firm contribute to the achievement of sustainable competitive advantage. Barney (1991) presented a
criteria in identifying which internal strengths can contribute to the achievement of sustainable competitive advantage.
These criteria are:
o Value
o Rarity
o Inimitability
o Non-susbstitutability
Viewing SHRM in a resource-based perspective, Wright and McMahan (1992) argues that human resources
have the ability to provide sustained competitive advantage through the fulfillment of four basic requirements.
1. Human Resources can be a source of competitive advantage if they are able to add value to the production
processes of the firm.
2. Human Resources can be a source of competitive advantage if they are equipped with rare skills.
3. Human Resources can be a source of competitive advantage if they are able to yield a human capital that is hard
to imitate. Although human resources are not subject to the same degree of imitation as equipment of facilities, the
firm can invest on its human capita to in order to further decrease the probability of such imitation by qualitatively
differentiating a firm’s employees from those of its competitors.
4. Human Resources can be a source of competitive advantage if they are not subject to replacement by
technological advances or other substitutes.
Definition of SHRM based on Resource-Based View
Viewing human resources as a resource that has the potential to contribute to the achievement of sustainable
competitive advantage, Burke and Cooper (2004) argued that SHRM has emerged as a major approach to improving
the competitive advantage of the firm. As an approach to improving the competitive advantage of the firm, the aim of
SHRM is to attract, train and develop and retain employees of the highest quality. Over time and throughout rapidly
changing circumstances, organizations must be able to sustain the competitive advantage that the knowledge and
skills of these employees provide. In the past, competitive advantage could be gained through finding better, cheaper
access to financial capital, or marketing a new product, or inventing some new technologies. While cheap and ready
access to capital, high-quality products, and new technology remain important components of any organization’s
competitive advantage, today’s business environment requires a greater focus on the human resources element in
business. Out of this realization has come SHRM (Sims 2002). Sims (2002) considers human resources as a source
of competitive advantage for the firm. Thus, he views SHRM as a contributor in developing and retaining this source
of competitive advantage.
Disadvantages of the Resource-Based View
The resource-based view of SHRM although useful has also some major challenges and disadvantages. One
such disadvantage is it is relatively easier to describe than to apply. Unlike other sources of competitive advantage
such as technological innovations, HR systems are more difficult to separate, distinguish and differentiate from one
firm to another. HR systems are multifaceted and extraordinarily complex; they exist as a dynamic mixture of
traditions, policies, procedures, contracts, and executive order. The proposition that HR systems lead to sustainable
competitive advantage is hard to support due to the difficulty in characterizing HR systems in a comprehensive
manner. The resource-based model also tends to put much emphasis on the internal resources to the point that
external factors such as competition are neglected.
Conclusion
This paper discussed the three perspectives on Strategic Human Resources Management. Proponents of the
universalistic perspective argue that there are SHRM practices and policies that will improve organizational
performance and ultimately contribute to the success of the firm. The universalistic perspective is also called the “best
practice” model. According to the best practice model, there are SHRM approaches that are better than others are,
and organizations should adopt this best practices. The contingency model on the other hand, stresses the
importance of “fit” between SHRM practices and between SHRM practices and organizational goal. The contingency
model promotes the integration of HR in the planning process of the firm. Lastly, the resource-based perspective
argues that HR must be considered as an internal resource. As an internal resource HR can be developed and
improved in order to differentiate the organization from its competitors and in order to achieve sustainable competitive
advantage. As a resource, HR must be of value; rare; hard to imitate and non-substitutable.
I personally consider the resource-based view of SHRM as the most adequate of the SHRM perspectives
discussed above. Strategic HRM according to Sims (2002) engenders organizational success by enhancing an
organization’s ability to acquire, develop, use, and retain employees with high competence levels relevant to the
organization activities. I think that HR must be considered as a resource that has a potential to contribute to the firm’s
success. Resource of an organization includes all assets, capabilities, organizational processes, firm attributes,
information, knowledge and others that are controlled by a firm that enable it to conceive of and implement strategies
that improve its efficiency and effectiveness. HR can be a source of competitive advantage if the organization is
implementing a value creating strategy that competitors do not implement. Using the resource-based perspective, I
believe that HR practices and policies cannot be a source of competitive advantage. The competitive advantage lies
in the human resources or the people that are working form the organization. HR practices on themselves cannot be
a source of competitive advantage because they are seldom rare, inimitable and non-substitutable. I agree with the
resource-based perspective because I believe that human resources or the people are the ones that contribute to the
success of the organization. HR practices and policies are used in order to realize the full potential of every
employee.
References
Ahmed, F.. Ullah, M. H. and Uddin, M. K. (2006), Strategic Human Resources Management: Linking HR Practices
with the Business Strategy, 34(3), 15-30.
Arthur, J. B. (1994). Effects of Human Resource Systems on Manufacturing Performance and Turnover. Academy of
Management Journal, 37(3), 670-687.
Baird, L. and Meshoulam, I. (1988). Managing Two Fits of Strategic Human Resource Management. Academy of
Management Review, 13, 116-128.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99-120.
Brewster, C, Mayrhofer, W. and Morley, M. (Eds.) (2000). New Challenges for European Human Resource
Management. Basingstoke, England: Macmillian.
Burke, R. and Cooper, C. (Eds.) (2004). Reinventing Human Resources Management: Challenges and New
Directions. New York:Routledge.
Buyens, D. and De Vos, A. (1999). The Added Value of the HR Department. In C. Brewster and H. Harris (Eds.).
International HRM: Contemporary Issues in Europe (pp.31-47). New York: Routledge.
Gratton, L. et al (1999). Strategic Human Resource Management: Corporate
Rhetoric and Human Reality, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jackson, S.E., Schuler, R.S., and Rivero, J.C. (1989). Organizational Characteristics as Predictors of Personnel
Practices. Personnel Psychology, 42, 727-786.
Lengnick-Hall, C. A. and Lengnick-Hall, M. L. (1990). Interactive Human
Resource Management and Strategic Planning. Westport, Conn.: Quorum Books.
Niehaus, R. (1995). Strategic HRM. Human Resource Planning, 18(3), 53+.
Peteraf, M.A. (1993). The Comerstones of Competitive Advantage: A Resource-Based View. Strategic Management
Journal, 14, 170-191.
Pfeffer, J. (1994). Competitive Advantage through People. California Management Review, 9-28.
Pfeffer, J. (1998). The Human Equation: Building Profits by putting People First. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
Pfeffer, J. and Veiga, J. F. (1999). Putting People First for Organizational Success. Academy of Management
Executive, 13(2), 37-48.
Prahalad, C.K. and Hamel, G. (1990). The Core Competence of the Corporation. Harvard Business Review, 90(3),
79-91.
Radcliffe, D. (2005). Critique of Human Resources Theory. Otago Management Graduate Review, 3, 51-67.
Sims, R. (2002). Organizational Success through Effective Human Resources Management. Westport CT: Quorum
Books.
Tichy, N.M et al (1982). Strategic Human Resource Management. Sloan Management Review, 23(2), 47-61.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A Resource Base View of the Firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5, 171-180.
Wright, R. M. and McMahan G. C. (1992). Theoretical Perspectives for Strategic Human Resources Management.
Journal of Management, 18(2): 292-320.
Read more: http://ivythesis.typepad.com/term_paper_topics/2010/05/strategic-human-resource-management-.html#ixzz1y4AvTSaA
At the Society for Human Resource Management’s (SHRM) 60th Annual Conference & Exposition in Chicago in June 2008, Herbert Heneman, professor emeritus of the University of Wisconsin’s Management and Human Resources Department in Madison, received the prestigious $50,000 Michael R. Losey Human Resource Research Award. Among other accomplishments, he was credited with helping prove that structured interviews of job applicants are vastly superior to informal ones.
Yet many academics say that HR practitioners either don’t use structured interviews or, if they do, don’t know the justification for using them. When it comes to research-based HR, that’s just the tip of the iceberg. HR practitioners are not using the knowledge base created for their use, says Denise Rousseau, professor of organizational behavior at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. "Because of that, decision-making and practices that they support not only are less effective than they could be, they are potentially harmful."
"There’s an incontestable gap between what’s happening in scholarly research and what’s happening in the world of practitioners," adds Murray Dalziel, director of the University of Liverpool Management School. Dalziel admits that even he has sometimes been ignorant of relevant research findings while formerly a consultant.
"I advised a bank to change the structure of [its] credit committee because it was too big," he says. He later found that "the findings in decision-making suggest that they should have kept it at that size, even increased it. In another case, I counseled members of a high-level team to spend more time on building communication between team members." However, team-effectiveness research has established that for that kind of team—in which members didn’t depend on each other to fulfill team goals—more communication harmed performance, an example where the common sense approach is contradicted by research.
Consider the survey of HR executives and managers conducted by management professor Sara Rynes and colleagues Amy Colbert and Kenneth Brown at the University of Iowa ("HR Professionals’ Beliefs about Effective Human Resource Practices: Correspondence Between Research and Practice,"Human Resource Management, Summer 2002).
Asked whether they agreed, disagreed or were uncertain about 35 proven management, staffing, compensation and other employment practices, more than half of the 959 respondents either did not believe the following findings to be true or were uncertain about them:
Intelligence predicts job performance better than conscientiousness. Screening for intelligence results in higher job performance than screening for values or values fit. Being very intelligent is not a disadvantage for performing well in a "low-skilled" job.
Personality inventories vary considerably in terms of how well they predict an applicant’s job performance.
Goal setting is more effective for improving performance than employee participation in decision-making.
Pay is much more important to employees than what they imply in surveys.
Different Worlds
There’s consensus—among academics and research-savvy HR professionals—that HR managers who follow evidence-based principles are best positioned to optimize the success of their organizations. Still, most HR professionals have little time, interest or tolerance for the more than 15,000 business and management articles that pour out of 1,900 academic English-language journals each year. Why? Practitioners:
Can’t wait for answers. Practitioners focus on solving problems and getting tasks done in time- and pressure-packed settings. Academics explore, contemplate and pursue research that can take three years or more before culminating in a journal article.
Care less about science than outcome. They don’t care why processes, tests, or other instruments or procedures work, just that they do. If wearing plaid instead of polka dots on Tuesdays increases retention, they’ll do it. "People want to see cost-benefit analyses before they implement," says professor Wayne Cascio of the University of Colorado Business School in Denver. "It’s not enough to know structured interviews will give you better-quality people. Practitioners want to see how it affects the bottom line."
Hate ambiguity. "For academics, the more you know, the more you realize you don’t know," says Howard Klein, professor of management and human resources at Ohio State University in Columbus. "There’s no definitive answer; instead, the best answer may be, ‘It depends.’ " Practitioners need concrete solutions; they’re not happy with ambiguities. They may turn to business gurus who, writing in trendy books, offer attractive solutions with formulaic takeaways.
But this advice comes with drawbacks: "It’s like consuming fast food," Dalziel says. "The more fast-food ideas we take in, the more likely our veins eventually will clog up. It’s good to a degree, but too much can be deadly." In other words, such gurus often dumb down and oversimplify research to provide takeaways.
Want relevant research. Academics tend to be interested in different subjects than practitioners. For practitioners, those subjects may be too theoretical or too esoteric, or may not be a need-to-know priority. But for academics, whose careers rise or fall on their success at achieving tenure and promotion, the topics are influenced by what the academic reward structure requires. There are 1,264 full-time faculty members in HR-related disciplines at four-year and graduate institutions, 522 in human resources—including personnel and industry-labor relations—and 742 in behavioral science and organizational behavior, according to the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB).
Fellow academics play a significant role in tenure and promotion processes and base recommendations to a great degree on the research that professors produce. The most highly regarded research is published in peer-reviewed journals. Edited by academics, submitted articles must survive a blind review where academics with expertise in the subject matter offer comments.
Since editors choose the subjects, faculty members study the journals and target their research to areas popular with them, improving the odds of publication. Peer review is self-perpetuating and limits the type of work. "If I don’t think it will be published, I won’t research it," says Mary A. Gowan, professor of management at Elon University in Elon, N.C.
But what editors publish may not appeal to practitioners. When co-author Diana Deadrick, associate professor of management at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Va., compared the content of HR-related academic journals with trade publications ("Revisiting the Research-Practice Gap in HR: A Longitudinal Analysis," Human Resource Management Review, 2009), she found some overlap in articles, but also significant differences. For example, though practitioners demonstrate strong interest in compensation issues, compensation was not among the top eight topics of interest to academics.
"I’m not sure many of the research questions are what keep practitioners awake at night," Dalziel says. "These articles tend to be strong on rigor, weak on relevance."
Want research they can understand. Even when academics want their research to impact practice, too often their writing is unintelligible to the business community. "The work gets lost in translation," Klein says.
"Academics speak primarily to academics; you find this in every discipline," says Maureen Fleming, professor emeritus in the University of Montana’s School of Business Administration and past chair of the SHRM Foundation. "After an article appears in a journal, its value for tenure and promotion purposes has been established. There is no incentive for the author to rewrite it for practitioners or to publicize it further."
Rynes cites Malcolm Gladwell, author of the best-seller Outliers: The Story of Success (Little, Brown, 2008), as a master of communicating research for the average reader. "More of us have to learn from authors like Gladwell. We have to come up with better stories, not be so risk-averse or qualify stuff so much."
Academics have a wish list, too. Academics want practitioners to:
Understand and value research. Practitioners need to be discerning research customers, but most haven’t had training, Klein says. Jeff McHenry, director of people and organizational capability for Microsoft in Redmond, Wash., says higher-level HR managers, especially in larger organizations, tend to be research-literate. In small and mid-size organizations, however, "prospects are grimmer."
Apply research principles. Ticking off scientifically proven principles is easy—the hard part is using them, Rousseau says. "Practitioners have to learn to be discriminating, to be able to look back, see the source and differentiate between an opinion and evidence-based conclusion. They should master the ‘how to’ as well as the ‘what.’ Even if you know what the research says, you still have to know in what situation and with what timing you should use the evidence."
Be flexible. More open-mindedness to ideas and less defensiveness would be welcome, Rynes says. "If we think we have a good finding that people don’t think they’ll like, how can we get them to try it? It’s the toughest nut to crack."
Bridge the Gap
The debate is under way about how to close the gap between research and reality, academics and practitioners, evidence-based and seat-of-the-pants management. Here are a few suggestions that may stimulate discussion:
Get serious about implementing academic accreditation standards. The AACSB requires member schools—461 in the United States—to establish a mission that includes production of intellectual contributions that advance the knowledge and practice of business and management. Each school is asked to define the intellectual contributions it deems appropriate to its mission. The definition might read: "The school will support management practice through the production of articles and tools for managers." Or, it might read: "The school will lead management through basic scholarly research that contributes original knowledge and theory in management disciplines." Or, "The faculty’s scholarship will be a mix of management practice-related advances and pedagogical research," according to AACSB Accreditation Standard 2.
"What matters is that schools choose and actually do what they say," says Daniel LeClair, vice president and chief knowledge officer at AACSB in Tampa, Fla. That means if a school says its emphasis is applied research, faculty scholarly contributions should reflect that priority, in quantity, quality and communication to the population it is supposed to reach. Two hundred eighty-one AACSB-accredited schools have self-selected applied scholarship—contributions to practice—as their "high emphasis" priority. One hundred eighty-four more list it as a co-priority with either discipline-based or pedagogical scholarship.
In theory, therefore, the pipeline of relevant, readable applied research should flow freely. In practice, tenure and promotion decisions mainly continue to be driven by the number of theoretical or discipline-based articles a professor scores in top-tier journals. "We’re trying to reverse the practice of just counting, and turn the emphasis to more on outcomes," LeClair says. In HR and organizational behavior combined, Rousseau estimates there are 35 to 40 top-tier English-language journals; 12 focus on human resources.
Making quality count as much as quantity represents a major shift, which LeClair says will take time. "We’re studying 10 schools to try to move in this direction. If we’re only successful in making quality matter as much as quantity, we’ll be headed in the right direction."
Examine college curriculums. HR curriculums should develop the competency in all HR professionals to know what is and is not a scientifically based finding or conclusion. "How can we blame practitioners if we haven’t taught them?" Rousseau asks. "We need to audit our curriculums to make sure students are being taught to appreciate the importance of evidence-based management and the role of research in advancing HR." That requires basic understanding of math and statistics.
Most undergraduate business and industrial psychology curriculums feature at least one course in statistics, and some observers say that should suffice. Whether the form and content of these courses is sufficient, or whether more in-depth study and practical applications should be added, are up for discussion.
In recent years, faculty members have been reluctant to add more quantitative requirements to HR curriculums for fear of losing students. "We did research on who chooses HR and found that a lot were math-phobic," Rynes says. The pressure on faculty to earn good student ratings of their teaching has an
impact on what and how they teach, she says. For example, too often graduate students are not being asked to do research or even read it. "MBA students don’t like reading research, so instead students are just discussing cases and practicing being a leader."
Recognize consultants as middlemen and researchers. Consultants generate useful, practical answers to pressing problems that practitioners grapple with. "They are better geared to do so than academics," Rynes says. "They are really interested in picking up the latest research and getting it out."
Consultants have better data than academics because they tap institutional databases. As with pharmaceutical company research, however, critics argue that self-interest taints consultants’ findings. Also, most consultant-based research is privately owned and not widely available for study. "I can’t pay $600 to figure out if it’s good," Rynes says.
Academics who moonlight as consultants are more likely to relate to the realities of the workplace. "In my own graduate training, if the professors hadn’t dragged me along to help them with their consulting, I wouldn’t have had the advantage of being able to relate to the practice side," Cascio says. "It influenced my whole career."
Cascio, John Boudreau, professor at the Marshall School of Business at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, and Dave Ulrich, professor in the Ross School of Business at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, number among a growing cadre of academic consultants who, by virtue of presentation skills, personality and knowledge, thrive in both camps.
Foster co-creation of ideas. Encourage faculty and practitioners to develop and partner in research. Establish conferences or think-tank sessions that bring them together. Encourage exchanges. Cross attendance does occur, but not in enough numbers to create a shared comfort zone, Rynes says. "Conferences are too much one side or the other. The Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology has a good model that seems to be attracting a broad cross section."
Open doors. Businesspeople should cooperate with researchers. "Just getting access has become more difficult," LeClair says. "They feel their only real competitive asset is their people and are worried about knowledge leakage, liability questions and survey fatigue."
Use Effective Practice Guidelines (EPGs). The SHRM Foundation has been addressing the "lost in translation" dilemma by hiring academics to rewrite academic research in a digestible form. EPGs—on topics from retaining talent to total rewards—can be downloaded from the SHRM web site.
"They’re the best example of a bridge between practitioners and evidence-based practices," says Larry Fogli, president and CEO of People Focus in Pleasant Hill, Calif. But "practitioners still don’t know they exist and don’t know how to apply them. … Someone told me, ‘I’ve read them, don’t understand them and to me they look too theoretical.’ " [Editor’s note: Fogli, Gowan and Rousseau are on the board of directors of the SHRM Foundation.] The SHRM Foundation also produces DVDs that demonstrate research applied in business settings.
Create an encyclopedia of HR precepts. Assemble a "bible" of about 130 HR principles you should know, Rousseau says. She cites medicine as a discipline whose practitioners do this effectively. "Twenty years ago, they talked about a research gap; practitioners were not reading medical journals and had
significantly different views about treatments depending on where they practiced. For example, we now know the value of carrying an aspirin in your wallet in the event of a cardiac event, but we’ve actually known about it for 20 years. What has helped doctors catch up to this and other scientifically supported findings is the recognition that they had not been following the evidence. They’ve created medical summaries available to everyone. Then came the Internet, making the whole body of knowledge open."
Support sponsored research. Invest in academics doing research that practitioners need. The SHRM Foundation is looking to fund research that has clear, practical implications. "Our criteria are grounded in relevance and rigor," says Klein, chair of the SHRM Foundation Board of Directors’ Research Committee. "We ask applicants to make the case why their proposal matters from an academic and practice perspective." Last year, the SHRM Foundation gave grants totaling about $750,000. "We get about 50 to 60 applications and award grants that average $65,000."
Call your local professor. "Ask questions," LeClair says. "Six out of 10 will be delighted to speak with you."
Party, party, party. In every boundary where knowledge doesn’t transfer, social relationships are lacking. Until academics and practitioners have more of a social life together, Rynes says, it will be hard to close the gap.