Why the HRM Research Is Seriously Lacking

¶ … HRM The main purpose of this peer-reviewed article is: The author, Bruce E. Kaufman, is putting forth the idea that research and scholarship on strategic human resource management has been avoided or ignored -- and that there needs to be better approaches to the challenges related to HMR. In fact Kaufman, who is an economics professor at Georgia State University, gives scholars that are involved with human resource management research a "D to F" grade for their lack of insightfulness (Kaufman, 2012).

Kaufman offers a plethora of reasons why he is convinced that the research into SHMR and HMR is either incomplete or it is not being utilized effectively. He criticizes the "overreliance on knowledge areas and perspectives" that relate to strategy, organizational behavior and psychology (12). The author claims that not enough attention has been paid to HMR issues relating to "external dimensions," including "…economics, industrial / employment relations, and the macro side of sociology" (12).

On pages 14-15 Kaufman explains that even though the peer-reviewed journal, Human Resource Management, claims its scholarship "…strives to create a bridge between academic work (research and theory) and real-world practices," the truth is that the substantial research from the HRM academics is largely ignored. And as a result, organizations typically "…fail to adopt practices that research has shown to be effective," and moreover, the "disconnect" between the knowledge that the academic community is producing and the use of that knowledge by HMR practitioners is "serious" (Kaufman, 14).

Kaufman goes on to offer three reasons why there is a gap between the research literature and practitioner utilization of that research that does offer value: a) managers are apparently unaware of the academic research findings; b) when managers do come into contact with recent relevant research, they don't put those findings to good use; and c) the subjects that are explored in the academic research are "not of interest to managers" (14).

The key question that the author is addressing is: Why are managers in HR ignoring the research by academia that is valuable, and why is so much of the research inappropriate? The existing research -- what the academics are actually producing -- is analyzed on page 14 by Kaufman.

First, much of the research produced is "seriously flawed and inaccurate in its theory"; secondly, the research is far too "broadly or amorphously framed" for HR managers to glean "actionable" principles from it; and thirdly, the academic research fails to deal with "HRM subject areas that are germane" and that add value to those managers (Kaufman, 14). Kaufman cites research by Rynes et al.

(2007); those authors contacted 208 editorial board members of scholarly journals related to HR and asked those 208 board members to list "the five most fundamental findings from HR research that all practicing managers should know" (15). Of those 208 board members, eighty-five contributed "usable answers," Kaufman reports. And the six most "fundamental" findings from board members of scholarly HR-related journals are "distinctly underwhelming," as only one pertains to the strategic level of HRM (Kaufman, 15).

The research gap that Rynes and colleagues identified (and that Kaufman references) is broken down into three items: a) intelligence -- performance; b) goal-setting -- effective motivation; and c) personality -- performance (Kaufman, 15). The question implied by Kaufman is this: how can three of the most "fundamental" findings in the HRM research be given just 1% or less coverage in journals that specifically relate to HRM practitioners? Even the textbooks lack HRM information that practitioners should have at hand, the author continues.

Typically the textbooks offer basic bottom-line HR information at the beginning of the text, but then they "…quickly transition to a dozen or more chapters on traditional HR functions" that have been utilized and embraced for the last ninety years (staffing, compensation, job design, etc.). What Kaufman finds in these texts is chapters "…pretty much empty of anything" that is well-thought-out or theoretical (16).

The most important information in this article is: Thirty years after the initial founding of basic fundamental principles of HR and HRM there is not a great deal of fresh insight forthcoming from academics. Yes, "generic concepts" such as "strategy, competitive advantage, commitment and fit" have been well-known and have been articulated often (Kaufman, 22).

But what have many modern HRM academics done creatively or constructively appropriate since thirty years ago? Kaufman says scholars appear to have "…dressed up many old ideas in new barb and claimed a new discovery" for ideas and strategies that have been practiced by "earlier.