The turn to employees in the measurement of human resource practices: A critical review and proposed way forward

Susanne Beijer, Riccardo Peccei, Marc Van Veldhoven, Jaap Paauwe

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

Abstract

Although initially studies examining human resource management (HRM)–outcome relationships only used management‐based ratings of HR practices, arguments have been advanced in favour of using employee‐based ratings. To examine this, a systematic analysis of HRM–outcome studies published between 2000 and 2017 is performed, which shows that over time studies have indeed increasingly made use of employees as respondents to measures of human resource (HR) practices. An in‐depth analysis of these measures of perceived HR practices revealed that various problems and issues can be identified when critically reviewing these measures. It is observed that considerable idiosyncrasy exists in measures of perceived HR practices, coupled with a lack of transparency in how these measures are often reported in existing studies. Also, a mixture of evaluative and descriptive items creates concerns about jingle fallacies in extant research and in turn about the validity of HRM–outcome results. Recommendations are provided to further advance the measurement and conceptualisation of this core construct.
LanguageEnglish
JournalHuman Resource Management Journal
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 2019

Fingerprint

Human resource practices
Employees
Human resource management
Rating
Conceptualization
Time study
Reviewing
Transparency

Cite this

@article{400d709839274e0d8cbfff15f3f1e8b6,
title = "The turn to employees in the measurement of human resource practices: A critical review and proposed way forward",
abstract = "Although initially studies examining human resource management (HRM)–outcome relationships only used management‐based ratings of HR practices, arguments have been advanced in favour of using employee‐based ratings. To examine this, a systematic analysis of HRM–outcome studies published between 2000 and 2017 is performed, which shows that over time studies have indeed increasingly made use of employees as respondents to measures of human resource (HR) practices. An in‐depth analysis of these measures of perceived HR practices revealed that various problems and issues can be identified when critically reviewing these measures. It is observed that considerable idiosyncrasy exists in measures of perceived HR practices, coupled with a lack of transparency in how these measures are often reported in existing studies. Also, a mixture of evaluative and descriptive items creates concerns about jingle fallacies in extant research and in turn about the validity of HRM–outcome results. Recommendations are provided to further advance the measurement and conceptualisation of this core construct.",
author = "Susanne Beijer and Riccardo Peccei and {Van Veldhoven}, Marc and Jaap Paauwe",
year = "2019",
doi = "10.1111/1748-8583.12229",
language = "English",
journal = "Human Resource Management Journal",
issn = "0954-5395",
publisher = "Wiley",

}

The turn to employees in the measurement of human resource practices : A critical review and proposed way forward. / Beijer, Susanne; Peccei, Riccardo; Van Veldhoven, Marc; Paauwe, Jaap.

In: Human Resource Management Journal, 2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - The turn to employees in the measurement of human resource practices

T2 - Human Resource Management Journal

AU - Beijer, Susanne

AU - Peccei, Riccardo

AU - Van Veldhoven, Marc

AU - Paauwe, Jaap

PY - 2019

Y1 - 2019

N2 - Although initially studies examining human resource management (HRM)–outcome relationships only used management‐based ratings of HR practices, arguments have been advanced in favour of using employee‐based ratings. To examine this, a systematic analysis of HRM–outcome studies published between 2000 and 2017 is performed, which shows that over time studies have indeed increasingly made use of employees as respondents to measures of human resource (HR) practices. An in‐depth analysis of these measures of perceived HR practices revealed that various problems and issues can be identified when critically reviewing these measures. It is observed that considerable idiosyncrasy exists in measures of perceived HR practices, coupled with a lack of transparency in how these measures are often reported in existing studies. Also, a mixture of evaluative and descriptive items creates concerns about jingle fallacies in extant research and in turn about the validity of HRM–outcome results. Recommendations are provided to further advance the measurement and conceptualisation of this core construct.

AB - Although initially studies examining human resource management (HRM)–outcome relationships only used management‐based ratings of HR practices, arguments have been advanced in favour of using employee‐based ratings. To examine this, a systematic analysis of HRM–outcome studies published between 2000 and 2017 is performed, which shows that over time studies have indeed increasingly made use of employees as respondents to measures of human resource (HR) practices. An in‐depth analysis of these measures of perceived HR practices revealed that various problems and issues can be identified when critically reviewing these measures. It is observed that considerable idiosyncrasy exists in measures of perceived HR practices, coupled with a lack of transparency in how these measures are often reported in existing studies. Also, a mixture of evaluative and descriptive items creates concerns about jingle fallacies in extant research and in turn about the validity of HRM–outcome results. Recommendations are provided to further advance the measurement and conceptualisation of this core construct.

U2 - 10.1111/1748-8583.12229

DO - 10.1111/1748-8583.12229

M3 - Article

JO - Human Resource Management Journal

JF - Human Resource Management Journal

SN - 0954-5395

ER -