that explain the choice of employment systems acrossWrms (Begin 1991 ; Marsden
1999 ) and the ‘make versus buy’ choice with respect to producing HRM services in-
house or purchasing these services from an external provider (Kaufman 2004 b).
On one hand, the return of economists to the HRMWeld was a ‘plus’ for it
substantially added to and strengthened the theoretical and empirical work in
the area, particularly with regard to the macro (external) dimension. But also
brought to light were unmet opportunities and potential vulnerabilities. Evidence
reveals, for example, that the economics and management/behavioral science wings
of theWeld were often like the proverbial ships passing in the night, either unaware
of or uninterested in the other and thus forfeiting intellectual gains from trade
(Mitchell 2001 ; Kaufman 2004 b). Also, a good deal of the management literature,
particularly at the textbook level, continued to be heavily descriptive and prescrip-
tive and thus vulnerable to encroachment by economists.
A second development also introduced a discordant note into the otherwise
bright picture. Even as the academic and practitioner literatures were brimming
with books and articles extolling the new HRM paradigm, evidence was also
accumulating that while individual HPWS practices were widely diVusing, rela-
tively fewWrms had adopted the full package (Freeman and Rogers 1999 ; Osterman
2000 ). Further, many companies continued to practice HRM in a fairly traditional
manner not much distinguishable from PM and IR. Indeed, while some companies
were moving toward the human capital/mutual-gains HRM model, many others
moved in the opposite direction. For them, ‘high performance’ was gained by
repeated downsizings, re-engineering programs, and corporate restructurings,
accompanied by large lay-oVs, the end of employment security, the dismantling
of ILMs, the externalization of employment to temporary workers and contracted
employees, and the roll-back or elimination of many beneWt programs (Cappelli
1999 ; Purcell and Purcell 1999 ). Accompanying this movement were, in many cases,
major reductions in the size and inXuence of corporate HRM departments and the
externalization of HRM services to call centers, temp Wrms, consultants, and
independent contractors (Jacoby 2003 ).
This scenario of events led to a degree of intellectual schizophrenia in HRM. For
example, if HRM is built on the idea that employees are assets then what type of
labor management system is being used at all the companies practicing down-
sizings and lay-oVs? PM? IR? Likewise, if HRM is synonymous with a HPWS
employment model, then are companies such Wal-Mart and McDonald’s using
non-HRM? Most writers sidestepped these thorny conceptual issues, or focused
only on paradigmatic ‘best practice’ cases.
Also evident in the 1990 s was a certain sense of desperation and prescriptive
boosterism in academic and practitioner writings on HRM. Part of the outpouring
of research on SHRM was a thinly veiled attempt to defend and enhance the
organizational survival of HRM in universities and companies (Kaufman 2004 b).
Prescription also became wrapped up with a somewhat apocalyptic vision that
38 b r u c e e. k a u f m a n