Oxford Handbook of Human Resource Management

(Steven Felgate) #1

Attempts to resolve this ‘list’ problem have led to a focus on ‘HR architecture’
(Becker and Gerhart 1996 ; Wright and Gardner 2003 ). This proposes that ‘HR
practices... be classiWed into four levels, including guiding principles, policy
alternatives (diVerent practices), products (competences and behaviors that prac-
tice promotes) and practice-process (the eVectiveness of execution of the practice)’
(Wright and Gardner 2003 : 314 ). Researchers need to choose the level or levels of
practice to investigate rather than rely on an undiVerentiated list.
TheWrm’s overall approach to HRM is established in guiding principles. Wright
and Boswell ( 2002 : 253 ) suggest that there is now ‘a consensus... emerging around
conceptual categories of employee skills, motivation and empowerment.’ This
allows for a broad conception of HR architecture to cover policies designed to
build and retain human capital and to inXuence employee behavior (motivation
and empowerment). This is now usually referred to as ‘ability, motivation and
opportunity’ (AMO) (Boxall and Purcell 2003 ).
AMO broadens the architecture dimensions to cover ‘knowledge, skills, ability’
(KSA) (e.g. Delery and Shaw 2001 ), motivationally based policies implied in
intrinsic and extrinsic incentive structures and rewards, and opportunities to
contribute and participate on and oVthe job. Once AMO is used as an analytical
structure, the policy alternatives (second level) and ‘products’ (third level) can be
speciWed. They will vary fromWrm toWrm. No deWnitive list of ‘best practices’
suggested by those advocating a universalistic model of HRM can be predicted.
Rather, a range of policy alternatives appropriate to theWrm in its sector (or
country) can be identiWed (Datta et al. 2005 ) and diVerent mixes of policies may
have the same performance outcome (‘equiWnality’). This neatly sidesteps the
problem of ‘horizontalWt’ which requires the number, strength, and combination
of practices to be identiWed, which is especially troublesome where the hypothesis
is that the eVect of combinations of practices is multiplicative (see Ch. 19 ). Bowen
and OstroV( 2004 : 206 ) note that ‘diVerent sets of practices may be equally eVective
so long as they allow a particular type of climate to develop (e.g. climates of
innovation or service).’ Thus, the use of an analytical structure such as AMO
helps us to deal with the problems of deciding which HR practices should be
studied. This is especially so since the need is to focus on the combined impact of
HR practices rather than the utility of each individual practice.


26.5 The Problem of Theory
.........................................................................................................................................................................................


The use of AMO begs the question of how the choice of appropriate practices
inXuences performance. This is the problem of theory. Even if robust causal


hrm and business performance 539
Free download pdf