HRM (notatki do sesji)
1. Chapter 1:
a) Evidence Based Human Resource Management (EBHRM) is a conscientious, explicit and
judicious decision making process t address important people-related issues in
organizations by combining the best available research evidence with measurable data
and professional knowledge available in organizations. Core elements in this definition
are:
- It is about decision making by practitioners who consciously apply their expertise and
judgement
- They use evidence from the local context to which decision applies
- They critically evaluate the best available external research evidence
- And they take perspectives of people who might be affected by the decision into
account
The main idea of EBHRM is that local practitioners (managers) identify the best
available external evidence and critically evaluate if generally approved best practises
are suitable for their organization.
b) In EBHRM managers need evidence about which interventions will result in the desired
outcome:
- Local evidence- systematically gathered data in a particular organization setting to
inform local decisions, which helps building thorough (precise) understanding of the
problem in question. Local evidence also provides a check on local applicability of
external evidence. Finally, local evidence helps managers to convince higher-ranked
decision makers to agree on an evidence-based intervention by presenting numbers,
figures and facts which show that the suggested intervention is needed and will be
effective.
- External evidence- the evidence gathered by systematic research of similar cases of
cause-effect relationships. This type of data is gathered from databases with research
findings created by scientists. EBHRM advocates that practitioners should rely on a
larger body of research to get the complete picture of external evidence. This type of
publications that provide such overviews of research findings are so-called systematic
reviews and meta-analyses, which both are systematic approaches to provide an
overview of research evidence for a specific research question.
- Systematic reviews are characterized by a methodical approach for comparing
research findings across different researches. As a meta-analysis is often part of a
systematic review (but not necessarily so), first the characteristics of systematic
reviews are explained before the additional features of meta-analyses are outlined.
Systematic review provides in its results and conclusion section insight in:
Patterns among study results concerning the research question
Potential sources of disagreement among researchers
New findings that have only come to the light after looking at the aggregate(unit,
assemblage) results of studies
Systematic reviews are published in academic journals whose access is often
limited to scholars and people who have paid access through their institute’s
library.
- Meta-analysis- statistical procedure for examining the overall strength of findings
over a number of studies. It’s often a part of a systematic review and it’s supposed to
be the most stringent (convincing) evidence for research questions.
2. Methodological toolbox for evaluating ‘evidence’:
a) Research methods: the skills needed to asses the quality of evidence can be
derived from elementary criteria for research quality: validity, reliability and
generalizability. Evidence based practitioners should consider each of these
criteria before deciding that local or external evidence they have is good enough
to rely on. Below:
, - Validity- the casual relationship between a cause and an effect. Firstly, evidence
should indicate that there is a relationship between a cause and an effect (!).
Secondly, you have to rule out alternative explanations that could explain the casual
relationship that was found. To rule out alternative explanations you should:
Check quality measures (construct validity)
Check the quality of research designs ( the strongest evidence to rule out
alternative explanations comes from longitudinal and quasi-experimental research
designs)
Good theory (the best bet for cross-sectional studies to rule out alternative
explanations is by providing good theoretical arguments why a cause would lead
to an effect and not other way around). Good theory is valid when it is based on
insights derived from many researchers: it describes a mechanism that works in
many situations.
- Reliability- certainty to a great extent that if we would repeat our research we would
find same results. A quick examination of the reliability of the evidence is by
checking if it is possible to verify the research method. This should provide:
a) Information that enabled replication of the procedure to collect the evidence
b) Information about sample and the sampling procedure
The evaluation of reliability involves three elements:
a) Replicability of the evidence (reliability hold that we can trust that the findings
reported would appear similar if we did the same research again)
b) Quality of the sample ( More data means more information and makes the
estimation more precise. Evidence should be collected from a randomized sample
of a clearly defined population.)
- Generalizability- it deals with the question whether local or external evidence can be
transferred to people or organizations that weren’t included in the research that led to
evidence. The evidence, which is repeated multiple times is more likely t generalize
to new samples rather the evidence that is ‘unique’. It’s also safer to rely on this type
of evidence. The following issues should be taken into account:
a) Boundary conditions are local conditions which may change a casual
relationship. Frequently reported boundary conditions are for example legislative
environment, the state of an economy, country (institutional characteristics), firm
size, firm age, industry type (organization characteristics), age, gender, job level,
tenure/possession, employment state, contract (demographic characteristics) and
research design characteristics such as longitudinal, cross-sectional,
experimental, qualitative.
b) The clearance of evidence- if it’s unclear if the external evidence can be
generalized or not, it’s a good idea to examine if it is possible to replicate the
evidence locally. It can be done by taking a random sample of the target
population of the organization and then repeating the research procedure as found
in the external evidence to produce local evidence.
The second toolbox. Who does the evidence based HRM?
1. Evidence based HRM practitioners work among colleagues and are part of social relations
and organization politics. Such practitioners need a behavioural skillset to ensure that
evidence-based interventions are introduced in organizations in such a way that they get
actually used and do not harm people. The behaviour skillset exists of translating the evidence
to HR practices, enabling the use of evidence based HR practices and an awareness of ethical
responsibilities.
2. Translating evidence to HR practice: after collecting local and external evidence,
practitioners can compare which interventions are the most likely to lead to an improvement
in the outcome. Based on valid, reliable evidence that is proved to be generally applicable,
practitioners are better informed and can conclude which intervention is suitable to the
, predominantly problem. Practitioners who investigate in collecting and using better evidence
will impact better decision making.
3. Enabling the use of evidence based HR practices: Unfortunately, there can be some
obstacles. Organization traditions and politics can stand in a way of using evidence to
improve interventions. To facilitate the use of evidence, the organizational culture should
promote learning and knowledge sharing among employees.
Working with people means for HRM having a responsibility towards people who contribute to
generate the evidence and to those who are targeted by the HR practice that follows from the
evidence. Academic and professional ethical guidelined should always guide the behaviour of
EBHRM practitioners. They include at least principle of informed consent, the principle of honest
information sharing, as well as the principle of data protection and privacy regulations, Informed
consent means that participants explicitly agree that they participate in a research project.
Conclusion:
a) EBRHM practices better suit the organization context than quick fixes. It will feel more
suitable for employees and managers to work with the practice.
b) Because EBHRM practice is based on local and external insights in cause-event relationships,
it will enable the tracking of results and facilitate continuous learning and improvement. Thic
can have a contagious effect on improving other management interventions.
c) Because EBHR practice uses locally obtained evidence, managers and employees will better
understand the need for the HR practice and easier accept its necessity.
Chapter 2. Investing in people and business performance
Key theories:
➔ Resource based theory
➔ Human capital theory
➔ Individual differences theories
➔ Social capital theory
➔ Social exchange theory
The key HR practises:
➔ Selection tools
➔ Strategic human resource development
➔ Work design ➔ Employee incentives
Theory
The theories originate all except of one from an economic perspective on human behavior.
Resource based theories
- Strategic management involves making plans about defining and meeting objectives of the
organization.
