19.5 Conclusion
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
The basic idea behind internalWt is that coherent systems of HRM activities create
positive synergistic eVects that enhance organizational eVectiveness, while conXict-
ing sets of HRM activities create negative synergistic eVects and harm organiza-
tional eVectiveness. The concept of internalWt is important to SHRM research
because it is at the heart of the arguments linking HRM activities and sustained
competitive advantage. It is very diYcult for poorly performing organizations to
imitate the HRM systems of more successful ones. In resource-based terminology,
these systems are relatively inimitable in part because of the causal ambiguity
surrounding the interaction of the individual HRM activities. Researchers and
practitioners have become more cognizant of the issue of internalWt and work has
begun to enhance our understanding of this very complex issue. In this chapter, we
set out to provide an overview of the main theoretical issues involving the internal
Wt of HRM activities. In doing so, we also brieXy reviewed the recent academic
work.
There is now some agreement that there is a multilevel HRM architecture
within organizations. Drawing on this research, we identiWed and described four
diVerent types of internalWt (within-HRM system verticalWt, intra-HRM activity
areaWt, inter-HRM activity areaWt, and between-HRM systemWt). We did this
not simply to provide theWeld with yet another typology. It is truly our hope that
this explication of the types ofWt will have a beneWcial impact on research. It is
clear to us that researchers must be more explicit in specifying and explaining the
proposed relationships between HRM activities than they have to date. It must
be clearly speciWed which HRM activitiesWt with each other and the particular
type ofWt since it seems unlikely that the theoretical arguments for all types
are identical. With more complete conceptual arguments, researchers should be
better able to choose appropriate measurement and statistical tools. It should
not be enough to justify the use of an index as a measure of the HRM system
simply because previous research has done so. More attention to these details
can only advance the state of SHRM and address previous calls for more theory
and rigorous empirical studies (e.g. Becker and Gerhart 1996 ; Delery and
Shaw 2001 ).
Based on our review of the empirical literature, we dispute claims that there is
a scarcity of empirical evidence that supports the notion of internalWt. There is a
great deal of research that supports the general theoretical conception of internalWt
and the diVerent types ofWt, including synergistic ‘powerful connections.’ How-
ever, virtually all of the research to date has focused on intra- and inter-HRM
activity area Wts. Research on within-HRM system verticalWt and between-
HRM systemWt is clearly desirable and would advance our knowledge of the
alignment between diVerent levels of abstraction and between diVerent HRM systems
400 sven kepes and john e. delery