Rynes et al. (2002) discuss their views of what 21st-century HR managers need to do and come to the conclusion that HR managers simply need to read more academic literature. They assess the nature of the gap between HR practitioners and the academic literature. They argue that their results are relevant to managers, without actually proving that assertion, or considering that their communication style would be viewed as confusing at best by HR practitioners, most of whom do not have a high-level mathematical background and have little time for the lack of clarity pervasive in academic literature. Once the authors set aside their indignation at being marginalized, they come forward with insights into changes in HR practice that they feel should be adopted. These are manifested in seven misconceptions that academic research has effectively disproved. Vosburgh's interview with Dave Ulrich (2003) supports this. The two agree that the most important thing for human resource...

This involves keeping abreast of trends and benchmarking against the innovators in the industry. The two see the role of HR as shifting towards meeting total stakeholder needs, and focused on how the discipline adds value to the organization. They also argue that the talent pool is not deep enough and that this creates succession issues. This dovetails with the point Rynes made about academic journals and HR practice -- if HR managers don't understand the writing style of journals, this not only points to an inability on the part of researchers to step out of the ivory tower but it also points to a lack of education on the part of practitioners. Those practitioners who are of top talent can understand the points that journals are making; other practitioners cannot and therefore ignore the journals' advice.
2. There are two sides to this lack of understanding about the role of HR. Executives may not…