Strategic Human Resource Management: The Value of Different Paradigms
Abstract
This paper argues that discussion of the strategic management of human resources has been limited by a confusion over the analysis of SHRM and an inadequate conception of the field for SHRM. By separating out the universalistic and con-textualist paradigms, the paper clarifies the differences in approach and how these affect views of the nature, levels and actors in the subject area. Siting itself in the contextualist paradigm, the paper draws attention to the value of that approach in understanding current developments in SHRM in Europe. 1 These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The universalist approach, with a heavy emphasis on human capital theory and the resource based view, is very different from contextual HRM approaches that highlight multiple stakeholders and take into account the institutional environment.
“The universalist approach with, currently, a heavy emphasis on human capital theory and the resource based view, is very different from the contextual HRM approaches that highlight multiple stakeholders and take into account the institutional environment (Brewster, 1999).”
From Conceptualising the future of HRM and technology research (2016) · cites this paper as Brewster, 1999
There is an implicit assumption in the majority of research into HRM that research findings will apply in all circumstances beyond those in which they were discovered.
“There is an implicit assumption in the majority of research into HRM that research findings will apply in all circumstances, beyond those in which they were discovered: it is part of the 'proper science' response which seeks universal answers focussed on identifying 'best practice' (Brewster, 1999).”
From Conceptualising the future of HRM and technology research (2016) · cites this paper as Brewster, 1999
Cites
Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action.
Jick, T. D. (1979) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392366 · Cited by 7,103 · cited 2× · see citing works
“From either perspective the key question in research is what the research is trying to explain: different kinds of methodologies will be appropriate for different issues and there is much to be gained by drawing insights from different techniques (Jick 1979).”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Conceptualising the future of HRM and technology research
Bondarouk, T., & Brewster, C. (2016) · The International Journal of Human Resource Management · doi:10.1080/09585192.2016.1232296 · Cited by 438 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Brewster, C.
- Affiliations
- Cranfield University (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Brewster, Chris
- ORCID
- Brewster, Chris
- Venue
- Management International Review
- Publisher
- Gabler Verlag
- Published
- 1999
- Pages
- 45-64
- OpenAlex
- W2097408454
- Cited by
- 164
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 13.00
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Gabler Verlag eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Human Resource and Talent Management
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Management and Organizational Practices
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Employer Branding and e-HRM
- Keywords
- strategic human resource management, paradigm comparison, levels of analysis
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
