The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A Critical Review of Algorithms in HRM: Definition, Theory, and Practice
Abstract
The recent surge of interest concerning data analytics in both business and academia has been accompanied by significant advances in the commercialization of HRM (Human Resource Management)-related algorithmic applications. Our literature search uncovered 22 high-quality academic papers and 122 practitioner-oriented items (e.g., popular press and trade journals). As part of our review, we draw several distinctions between the typical use of HRM algorithms and more traditional statistical applications. We find that while HRM algorithmic applications tend not to be especially theory-driven, the “black box” label often invoked by critics of these efforts is not entirely appropriate. Instead, HRM-related algorithms are best characterized as heuristics. In considering the implications of our findings, we note that there is already evidence of a research-practitioner divide; relative to scholarly efforts, practitioner interest in HRM algorithms has grown exponentially in recent years.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“First, we identify six management functions that algorithms are currently able to perform: monitoring, goal setting, performance management, scheduling, compensation, and job termination.”
From Algorithms as work designers: How algorithmic management influences the design of jobs (2022) · cites this paper as Cheng & Hackett, 2019
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Algorithms as work designers: How algorithmic management influences the design of jobs
Parent-Rocheleau, X., & Parker, S. K. (2022) · Human Resource Management Review · doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2021.100838 · Cited by 512
AI-augmented HRM: Antecedents, assimilation and multilevel consequences
Prikshat, V., Malik, A., & Budhwar, P. (2023) · Human Resource Management Review · doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2021.100860 · Cited by 200
Metadata
- Authors
- Cheng, M. M., & Hackett, R. D.
- Affiliations
- McMaster University (CA)
- ORCID
- Hackett, Rick D.
- Venue
- Academy of Management Proceedings
- Publisher
- Academy of Management
- Published
- 2019-08-01
- Volume
- 2019
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 18018
- ISSN
- 0065-0668 (ISSN-L)
- 2151-6561
- OpenAlex
- W4245889339
- Cited by
- 29
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1
- Type
- conference abstract
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Academy of Management Proceedings (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › AI and HR Technologies
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Employer Branding and e-HRM
- Keywords
- human resource management, data analytics, heuristics, black box, algorithmic decision-making
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