The Kianto, 2016,p.47). However, the latter aspect, the effects

The selection, by Delaney &
Huselid ( 2013,p.969)of HRM practices considered its relevance for the
development of the knowledge and skills of employees and the motivation to use
these skills, considering that the company’s strategy (business or production)
can only be the employees use their knowledge and skills. Combining the
reduction of protection measures with the development of these characteristics
of the flexible production systems create the conditions necessary for
Innovative HCMs allow effective economic performance. Minbaeva (2013,p.390),
shares the same concept of high-performance work practices adopted by Delaney
& Huselid ( 2013,p.969), that is, practices that enable the acquisition and
development of knowledge, motivating the employees to use them to achieve the
strategic objectives. The investigations by Minbaeva (2013,p.390), as well as
concluded by the impact of HRM in organizational performance, also showed that
the selection of practices is not even though both researchers use the same
concept of HRM practices. The relationship between HRM and organizational
performance is limited, such as the diversity of practices, which does not
allow a comparative benchmark. This is a great obstacle to the accumulation of
data and the generalization of the conclusions (Guest, 2014,p.67).

 

According to Park & Shaw
(2013,p.66), the HRM practices that received researchers were: employee
participation, empowerment and job redesign, including systems based on teams,
training, compensation, and performance. Minbaeva (2013,p.390), for example,
listed a set of sixteen practices, and then to reduce them to the essential,
which comes down to job security, selection, compensation (associated with
performance), information sharing, participation and empowerment, teamwork and
job redesign, training and skill development. Rees & Smith (2017.p.34), in
the analysis of studies on HRM and performance, use groupings of high levels of
involvement, including practices that promote flexibility at work, team and
minimizing status differences. Buller & McEvoy(2014,p.56) points out the
selection, training, communication, job design, and reward systems such as
those that bring together a growing consensus among researchers. Considering
these examples, it can be said that the aspects common to the practices are:
(1) their association with motivation increase goals; (2) promote the
acquisition and development of skills in employees; (3) provide opportunities
for the application of knowledge in the workplace; (4) impact performance
organizational structure (Andreeva & Kianto, 2016,p.47). However, the
latter aspect, the effects of practices on organizational performance, raises
doubts in part because of methodological difficulties of assessment as well as
the absence of consensual measures of organizational performance. In summary,
using Park & Shaw (2013,p.66), opinion, greater precision is required
organizational performance should be defined and evaluated. The lack of clear
definition and validity of the performance construct may be a limiting factor
in the current research on HRM and its impact on organizational performance

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

 

 

Minbaeva (2013,p.390), proposed four
types of measures for organizational performance: (1) GRH results ( turnover ,
absenteeism, job satisfaction), (2) results (productivity, quality, service),
(3) financial results (Profitability) and (4) capital market results (stock
price, growth, return). The measurement of the relationship between HRM
practices and organizational performance also, according to Delaney &
Huselid ( 2013,p.969), on the level of credibility and reliability. The weak
internal consistency of the scales used as well as low levels of overall
measurement validity of the Human resource management practices is an
inescapable issue. There is no agreement on the group of practices to be
considered or the level of specificity of their measures (which can be the
example, from presence/absence of practice to its different expressions). The
authors reaffirming the interest of this field of research suggest (1) a
greater focus on intra-industry studies, (2) increased factory and business
studies, and (3) development of reliable human resource management practices
(Huselid et.al, 2011,p.188).

Point to last, for the need to
consider longitudinal qualitative research in order to describe more
effectively the differences between policies advocated and their implementation
and to evidence more the relationship of causality (or not) between human
resources practices and performance organizational structure(Melton
,2017,p.130).When thinking about the process that mediates human
resources management and organizational performance, the discussion focuses on
the intermediate variables that we should consider in this process. Buller
& McEvoy(2014,p.56), in reflecting on the organization’s diagnostic process
compare “reality with expectations, we look essentially at the results or
the products of the organization and not its processes, actions or resources.
” The focusing on organizational results limits our understanding of the
process as the volume of business or market share are considered results but
not the leadership or the work of a team that contributed to these same
results(Huselid et.al, 2011,p.188). Park & Shaw (2013,p.66) call attention
to the fact that designed to guide their impact on HRM results (eg
absenteeism), followed by results at the organizational, financial, and capital
market levels. However, the increasing complexity of factors influencing
(organizational or capital market, for example), attenuate the of HRM factors
for organizational performance when it is expressed on the basis of indicators
other than those specific to HRM. For example, the appreciation of an
organization does not highlight specific actions developed within the framework
of HRM (Guest, 2014,p.67). This lack of specialized evidence on organizational
results leads to the perception that results of HRM are in fact deficient, from
the point of view of most executives, and explain why much of HRM Strategic
Research has focused on organizational results, for example, instead of other
possible ones such as HRM, of the capital and financial resources.