ArticlePDF Available

Advocation of a contextually driven Strategy as Practice lens for future SHRM research

Authors:

Abstract

This conceptual paper advocates for a Strategy as Practice (SAP) lens, which prioritises people and context, in future Human Resource Management (HRM) research related to strategy. The paper first provides a summary of what SAP intrinsically brings to the table and how it could provide an additive lens to better understand strategic issues within HRM. Incorporating the natural intersections between SAP, HR role theory, and Strategic Human Resource Management, we then highlight four distinct areas of enquiry which we believe could benefit from an SAP focus: 1/ being more strategic; 2/ strategy-making settings; 3/ incorporating multiple levels of analysis; and 4/ focusing on within-firm variability. In summary, this paper provides support and specific examples of where and how an SAP lens can provide a much needed refocus of attention away from just economic performance towards understanding humans' role in setting HRM initiatives and interpreting their outcomes.
NZJHRM 2023: Vol 23 Issue 2
NZJHRM 23(2)1-19
Strategy as
Practice
lens for
SHRM
research
Page | 1
Advocation of a contextually driven Strategy as Practice lens for future
SHRM research
Jason Cordier (Corresponding author)
Lecturer
Massey University
j.cordier@massey.ac.nz
Darryl Forsyth
Senior Lecturer
Massey University
David Tappin
Associate Professor
Massey University
ABSTRACT
This conceptual paper advocates for a Strategy as Practice (SAP) lens, which prioritises people and
context, in future Human Resource Management (HRM) research related to strategy. The paper
first provides a summary of what SAP intrinsically brings to the table and how it could provide an
additive lens to better understand strategic issues within HRM. Incorporating the natural
intersections between SAP, HR role theory, and Strategic Human Resource Management, we then
highlight four distinct areas of enquiry which we believe could benefit from an SAP focus: 1/ being
more strategic; 2/ strategy-making settings; 3/ incorporating multiple levels of analysis; and 4/
focusing on within-firm variability. In summary, this paper provides support and specific examples
of where and how an SAP lens can provide a much needed refocus of attention away from just
economic performance towards understanding humans' role in setting HRM initiatives and
interpreting their outcomes.
INTRODUCTION
In general, we suggest that Human Resource Management (HRM) has insufficiently addressed the
importance of context and its impact (Mayrhofer et al., 2019). More specifically, we argue that
strategic and contextually significant factors existing at the micro, meso and macro levels that are
important in framing phenomena surrounding strategic activity have received sparse attention. The
purpose of this paper is to argue for the increased adoption of a Strategy as Practice (SAP) lens
within specific aspects of future HRM research as one potential vehicle to rectify this situation.
Jarzabkowski (2004) suggests that “[strategic] practice occurs within [a] coexistent and fluid
interplay between contexts” (p. 542), while broader contextual elements like extra-organisational
contextual issues (Kaufman, 2020; Renkema et al., 2016), internal organisation (Apascaritei &
Elvira, 2021; Beletskiy & Fey, 2021; Miles et al., , 1978), and the characteristics of corporate
control (Bower, 1970; Regnér, 2003; Vancil & Buddrus, 1979) can impact the ‘doing’ of strategy
that involves human resources. Further to this, broader HRM research has been criticised for not
incorporating significant advances in neighbouring disciplines (Harney & Collings, 2021) such as
strategy (Chadwick & Flinchbaugh, 2021). An understanding of such elements in HRM scholarship
NZJHRM 2023: Vol 23 Issue 2
NZJHRM 23(2)1-19
Strategy as
Practice
lens for
SHRM
research
Page | 2
is not only under-researched (Renkema et al., 2016), but would offer the potential for a better-
informed account of the forces driving the human resource function and business unit practices.
Our paper advocates an SAP lens in the investigation and framing of the strategic actions of
Human Resource (HR) practitioners and their strategic interactions with Business Unit (BU)
organisational actors, and relatedly, the embedded contextually relevant phenomena found in day-
to-day organisational life. In doing so, our paper also exploits natural intersections between SAP,
HR role theory, and SHRM research in general. HR role theory has illustrated the different roles
that the HRF has undertaken when doing HRM work (Barney & Wright, 1997; Storey, 1992;
Ulrich, 1997; Ulrich & Brockbank, 2005), while parallel to this (Björkman et al., 2014), SHRM
scholarship has been devoted to understanding HRM’s part in supporting strategy (Wright et al.,
2001). Like Björkman et al. (2014, p. 123), we argue that these “two streams of literature remain
relatively isolated from each other” (p.123), particularly in understanding what HR practitioners do
to act strategically. Work by Welch and Welch (2012), investigating what HR practitioners do,
suggests that “the operational/strategic divide [reported within the literature] is potentially
misleading” (p. 615). Understanding the actual actions of strategically relevant actors is, however,
something that the SAP literature has sought to address (Golsorkhi et al., 2010; Jarzabkowski, 2004;
Johnson et al., 2003b). We argue that increased research focus in this area will not only advance
scholarship but also better inform HR practitioners.
Specifically, this paper seeks to illustrate the utility of investigating important aspects of HR
role theory and SHRM within an SAP lens, which intrinsically accounts for context. The resulting
scholarship, we argue, could advance HRM and strategic management scholarship’s understanding
of strategy activity in the HRM context (cf. Björkman et al., 2014). To achieve this aim, we first
offer a brief overview of SAP before presenting four areas at the intersection of SHRM and HR
role theory which we believe would benefit from an SAP lens, specifically: 1. Being more strategic;
2. Strategy-making settings; 3. Incorporating multiple levels of analysis; and 4. Attending to within-
firm stakeholder variability.
WHAT IS STRATEGY AS PRACTICE?
A central element of SAP is understanding what practitioners of strategy actually do (Golsorkhi et
al., 2010; Hambrick, 2004; Jarzabkowski, 2004; Johnson et al., 2003a). This “constitute[s] the day-
to-day activities of organisational life and those which relate to strategic outcomes (Johnson et al.,
2003a). The focus, therefore, is on micro-activities that, while often invisible to traditional strategy
research, nevertheless can have significant consequences for organisations and those that work in
them” (p. 3). The concern for the micro, is, however, not at the exclusion of the macro. Rather, SAP
seeks to complement areas that traditional strategic management scholarship has been unable to
answer (cf. Jarzabkowski & Whittington, 2008; Whittington, 2006). Strategy has traditionally and
dominantly been viewed as the property of an organisation; this frames strategy as something a
firm has, rather than something it does (Whittington, 2006).
Work reflecting the importance of human beings within strategic management scholarship has
greatly diminished on the back of economic strategic perspectives (Jarzabkowski, Balogun, &
Seidl, 2007; Tsoukas & Knudsen, 2002; Whittington, 2003). Omissions of people and their actions
in macro strategic scholarship are also evident in core strategic management theory such as the
resource-based view of the firm (Barney, 1991). Moreover, Jarzabkowski and Spee (2009)
observed that, even in work that included actors within the organisation, the focus was very much
on senior managers. They further commented on the unlikelihood of a small group of super agents
(in this case senior managers) pulling all the strategic strings, while no one else in the organisation
acted strategically.
SAP as a field can be seen to embrace a common sense approach to organisation (Björkman et
al., 2014). Just as common sense depicts that strategy is broader and deeper than the workings of a
few senior managers alone, the practice of strategy places emphasis on “the common-sensical
notion of practical activity and direct experience” (Orlikowski et al., 2010, p. 24). Importantly,
however, this is not just a list of what people do, or anecdotal management experiences barren of
NZJHRM 2023: Vol 23 Issue 2
NZJHRM 23(2)1-19
Strategy as
Practice
lens for
SHRM
research
Page | 3
theory - a concern Grant (2016) has towards practically informed positions (cf. Jarzabkowski &
Whittington, 2008).
What SAP ultimately does is afford greater attention to people and their actions. It focuses on
the micro activities of people and accounts for these elements with larger social structures. From
an SAP perspective, “strategy is not a static property of a firm but is continuously created in the
doing of strategy work” (Jarzabkowski et al., 2013, p. 41). Strategy and strategising, therefore,
extend outside the domain of top managers alone (cf Mantere, 2005; Vaara & Whittington, 2012;
Whittington, 2003).
What SAP sets out to achieve is tightly focused on addressing weaknesses and gaps within the
broader HRM literature. Critical positions of HRM scholarship are therefore largely accounted for
within an SAP perspective. In many cases where critical HRM scholarship has expressed concern
towards the methodological or theoretical direction of HRM, SAP scholarship itself has advanced
to mature states within these areas. Directions put forward by HRM scholars to progress HRM
research therefore increasingly resemble those calls that were made in critical strategic management
scholarship and subsequently gave rise to the emergence and proliferation of SAP.
1. BEING MORE STRATEGIC
The first area of research opportunities for the application of an SAP lens entails developing a better
understanding of what being ‘more’ strategic involves, and the tensions associated with HRM
practitioners trying to be more strategic. HR role theory has sought to understand what it means to
be strategic, or more strategic especially when it comes to understanding how the Human
Resource Function (HRF) acts strategically (Björkman et al., 2014; Pritchard, 2010; Truss et al.,
2002). From the perspective of HR professionals, the term SHRM “signal[s] their belief that
effective HRM contributes to business effectiveness […]. Many HRM scholars share this basic
understanding of what ‘strategic HRM’ means” (Jackson et al., 2014, p. 2). HRM practices are
represented by the daily enactment of HR philosophies and policies. These are socially embedded
activities that are continually evolving (Dundon & Rafferty, 2018; Schuler, 1992) for the triad. By
virtue of their social embeddedness, context plays a significant role in these activities.
However, the aspirations of incorporating the HRF into making strategic contributions have
expanded the stakeholder dynamic to a much broader one (Jackson et al., 2014). A critical element
influencing the HRF has therefore been the legitimacy of the function. Typically within a firm, any
given organisational unit’s capabilities are constantly assessed both explicitly and implicitly
through the scrutiny of both central decision-makers and top management (Mäkelä et al., 2013).
Consequently, the extent and level of importance that stakeholders give to people issues is a central
theme to this and includes top, middle and line managers, in addition to employees (Björkman et
al., 2011; Tsui, 1987; Tsui, 1990).
Legitimacy and Being More Strategic
The history of the battle for legitimacy of the HRF (Gilmore & Williams, 2007; Legge, 1978, 1995),
and the subsequent promise of achieving this through embodying a strategic role (Guest, 1987) has
not been an easy journey, with the HRF facing numerous challenges implementing advocated
solutions. Such overall poor perceptions of the HRF’s strategic aptitude from business partners
have seen HR practitioners look towards high-level strategic integration as a remedy to these
perceptions. Research has also shown the problematic nature of HR practitioners achieving
strategic integration (e.g. Caldwell, 2003, 2008; Guest & King, 2004; Truss et al., 2002). This is a
point illustrated acutely by Guest and King (2004) in re-examining Legge’s (1978) influential work
on the vicious circles that have hindered HR practitioners' operational effectiveness and strategic
integration within the firm. Guest and King (2004) largely reaffirmed that Legge’s vicious circles
were still in effect - despite the passage of 25 years.
As such, several promising research opportunities exist when viewed through an SAP lens. First,
the state of HRF’s strategic influence would warrant re-examination as we are again fast
NZJHRM 2023: Vol 23 Issue 2
NZJHRM 23(2)1-19
Strategy as
Practice
lens for
SHRM
research
Page | 4
approaching another quarter century of progress since Guest and King’s (2004) work explored the
quarter century before it. Heizmann and Fox (2019) have illustrated that such legitimacy concerns
may still be alive despite a large number of prescriptive articles available. This could be a
particularly fruitful area of research if undertaken in a multiple-country case setting using an SAP
lens to identify the states of legitimacy, influence, and strategic integration of different countries
and regions that have contextually unique settings. There is sound justification for doing so,
considering that contextual elements contribute to styles of HRM (Boxall et al., 2018), and that one
of the reasons for regions such as Africa, South America and South East Asia being significantly
under-explored in top HRM journals (Cooke, Xiao, & Chen, 2021) is because they are regarded as
‘less strategic’ in their approaches to HRM.
Other than applying an SAP lens to some of the original approaches in Guest and King’s (2004)
influential work, researchers could consider exploring perceptions around the HR function's
competencies in strategy development and abilities to meaningfully contribute to performance.
Such research would not only attend to understanding what the state of HRM is, but how strategic
influence is associated with contextually significant factors. Here, research could make inroads into
the practices and praxis HR practitioners undertake across the organisation, in differing cultural
contexts, as they manage tensions of being operational while also being expected to be ‘more
strategic’. Attention could be paid to “HR ambidexterity”, for example. This offers a means to look
at the HR function’s varying levels of capabilities in both the operational (exploitative) and strategic
(explorative) domains (Beletskiy & Fey, 2021) and how the HR function manages the tensions of
these positions. Applying and advancing the work Jarzabkowski (2004) started in SAP around
recursive and adaptive structures could be a fruitful area to pursue in this space. A related area of
enquiry would be to look at how the HRF uses BU knowledge to develop exploitative and
explorative knowledge and capabilities as exhibited in management consulting where client
knowledge is used in the creation of contextually specific organisational problems (e.g. Cordier &
Marin, 2017).
Strategic Linkages
A further valuable area of enquiry could include revisiting Golden and Ramanujam’s (1985)
strategic linkage framework utilising an SAP lens. Golden and Ramanujam’s framework has been
valuable in identifying the level of HRM integration within specific industry settings (Buller, 1988)
for example, settings such as public sector organisations that have undergone corporatisation
(Teo, 2000). Examining particular firm-level strategies and looking at the HRF’s role in
implementation in varying contexts, such as Sarvaiya, Eweje, and Arrowsmith (2015) have done in
the context of corporate social responsibility, is valuable yet rare.
Sarvaiya et al. (2015) addressed the neglect of contextual influence, and how HR roles are
performed by HR practitioners within corporate social responsibility initiatives. Their contribution
brings back strategic process elements to Golden and Ramanujam’s (1985) framework, while their
approach takes useful steps toward delineating the “complexity of boundaries between strategic
and transactional work” (Pritchard, 2010, p.176). It also addresses concerns about the argued
simplistic positioning of strategic and operational discrepancies (Parkes & Davis, 2013; Ulrich &
Brockbank, 2005). SAP has significant bodies of literature around such issues that offer avenues of
redress for HR scholarship. Continuing along this path using an SAP lens offers the opportunity
for a better understanding around sought and delivered strategic-level contributions (see Kohtamäki
et al., 2022).
Strategic Influence Through Coalitions
Boxall and Purcell (2011) narrate a process of strategic management that paints the beginnings of
the messy way senior managers interact in the process of strategic decision-making, bringing to
light contextual issues. Boxall and Purcell refer to the possible need for ‘force majeure’ to combat
the agency of various stakeholder coalitions that choose to assert their will. Such a picture is highly
NZJHRM 2023: Vol 23 Issue 2
NZJHRM 23(2)1-19
Strategy as
Practice
lens for
SHRM
research
Page | 5
plausible, yet there is a dearth of empirical work on senior managers and HR directors interacting
in such a manner. SAP scholarship around sensemaking offers a mechanism to address this.
Strategy creation and implementation requires different stakeholder groups working in coalitions
to pursue different agendas. Better understanding how these coalitions seek to influence HRM
strategy could be a valuable exercise. We argue that SAP scholarship that uses a sensemaking
framework could meaningfully enhance HRM perspectives. Specifically, this could be a path to
pursue what constitutes desirable strategic action what is viewed as strategic action for differing
coalitions conceivably may not be the same for each group.
Identity Tension and Ambiguity of Being More Strategic
“What is considered strategic is likely to differ between organisational contexts and it may be
difficult to establish a neat categorisation that encapsulates this variety” (Truss et al., 2002, p.40).
The identity of those developing and enacting HR strategy, therefore, conceivably plays a
significant contextual role in HR strategic involvement. Pritchard (2010) illustrates the unfolding
situated identity tensions arising as one group of HR professionals undertook training in a firm-
level transition towards becoming strategic partners. Ambiguity was a core theme of her findings.
Within the course of organisational interactions, an understanding of what the role of a strategic
partner entailed was neither clear nor unified. Vague language emerged surrounding what strategy
entailed when business partners spoke to HR personnel within strategic training sessions.
Contrastingly, some members who remained in the functional team not embarking on a transition
to becoming strategic used ‘strategic’ in an ironic sense. For them, the real work was happening
in transactional activities.
The relevance here for continued HRM research is to be acutely aware that how one perceives
or describes themselves can ebb and flow (Alvesson & Kärreman, 2007), and disparity exists
around how one not only influences and engages with strategy, but how that might change over
time for an individual. Understanding identity beyond work identity and understanding how
“individuals made trade-offs among their various identities” (Wright, 2021, p. 4) in strategy
development and implementation furthers knowledge of the decision-making of people and HRM
performance.
2. STRATEGY-MAKING SETTINGS
The second area of broad research opportunities using an SAP lens in HR scholarship involving
strategic phenomena revolves around strategy-making settings; specifically, aspirations for
boardroom representation, and strategic activity beyond the boardroom and the middle manager
level.
Aspirations for Boardroom Representation
While HR practitioners have aimed their sights on the boardroom in pursuit of strategic relevance,
the research evidence largely does not support any significant strategic impact resulting from a
board position. Longitudinal research by Lawler and Boudreau (2015) has illustrated limitations in
the way that the HRF has helped boards, although, boards are more likely to use HRF’s help on
strategic issues if the organisation has a strong strategic focus. The overall impact of strategic
involvement and boardroom interaction is, however, perhaps best summed up with their statement:
“overall, it is clear that in most companies, HR has its foot in the boardroom door, but that is all,
and there is no evidence of this changing” (p. 24).
While boards are spending more time devoted to strategy (Anderson et al., 2007), within the
literature varied empirical and theoretical positions have garnered little agreement on understanding
how boards contribute to strategy (Hendry et al., 2010). This poses problems for understanding
how an HR practitioner contributes to strategy, especially if we look beyond merely having a seat
at the boardroom table.
NZJHRM 2023: Vol 23 Issue 2
NZJHRM 23(2)1-19
Strategy as
Practice
lens for
SHRM
research
Page | 6
Along these lines in the SHRM domain, there appear to be insufficient explanations regarding
what conditions HR strategic interactions function under, and under what conditions they would
likely occur. Similarly, scholarship has yet to sufficiently demonstrate an understanding of how the
HRF’s ability to contribute to strategy is influenced by organisational dynamics, and how strategic
influence occurs in practical terms at the board level. The HRF achieving a seat at the boardroom
table to declare the HRF’s strategic contribution as being realised is a contested idea, and the
gravitas of such arguments warrants an understanding of what occurs within boardrooms where the
HRF has representation, and most importantly, in what manner this is undertaken.
There is a dearth of literature in general on how a board of directors undertake strategic activity,
with a glaring gap, particularly in the practices and actions utilised by HRM-aligned board members
within this environment. Researchers could therefore consider addressing a question such as how
does strategic integration occur between HR board members and the board? One particularly
fruitful exercise could be to mirror the work of Hendry et al. (2010) who used an SAP lens to
understand general strategy development in the boardroom setting. For HRM scholarship this
would entail focusing on HR issues and the interplay between the HR board member, the general
board, and executive management.
Incorporating our core argument of the need to include context in future work, one might
consider what contextual factors influence procedural strategising and interactive strategising
approaches. The former is a minimalist approach to strategy, or an oversight position that favoured
management engaging in strategic decisions, while the latter entails either a high engagement
towards episodic calibration with management for the transformation of the firm or continuous and
ongoing collaboration with management. Such findings could influence key debates on where the
greatest strategic influence can occur and how. As Caldwell (2011) points out, from an SAP
perspective, the focus on the strategic importance of the boardroom may be somewhat misguided
if the high-level representation is unable to exercise influence.
Strategic Activity Beyond the Boardroom
With it being unclear as to the role of the boardroom in influencing HRM strategies, it is prudent
to also pursue alternative positions of influence. Here, we concur with Caldwell’s (2011) pragmatic
position that what is important is that “HR can exercise influence and make a business contribution
at whatever level is appropriate” (p. 54). Subsequently, other avenues of strategic influence that are
available to the HRF are interwoven with context.
One fruitful area to advance HR scholarship would be to draw on the work of Kelly and Gennard
(2007). Their research on the locus of strategic decision-making contends that strategic influence
can occur with proximity to the CEO in committees, with informal channels also available to exert
influence. Other scholarship by Brandl and Pohler (2010) notes that the constraints upon the CEO
narrows or widens the strategic role they can bestow upon the HRF. The scope the CEO has for
action, their willingness to delegate responsibility, and their perceived aptitude for the HRF will
influence how much strategic responsibility the HRF has. Such findings have significant
implications for how the HRFs, and various HR actors assert agency.
Social capital research by Mäkelä et al. (2013), for example, illustrates that despite the intuitive
notion that centrality and proximity to key decision makers would yield strategic influence, such
proximity to strategic decision makers does not always result in the actualisation of strategic
influence. The premise of structural social capital acting as a pathway to influence strategy is
certainly inviting. Close proximity between the HRF and BU heads could easily be conceived as a
critical condition for individual action (Sumelius et al., 2008).
However, Mäkelä et al. (2013) found no meaningful relationship between structural capital and
strategic capabilities. Rather, relational social capital is presented as a strong and significant
relationship (i.e., the degree of trust, norms and expectations embedded within relationships). As
their findings illustrate, structural capital may present an opportunity for proximity to establish a
relationship between HR practitioners and business actors, but the nature of the relationship is what
impacts strategic capabilities (Mäkelä et al., 2013). SAP scholarship by Jarzabkowski and Balogun
NZJHRM 2023: Vol 23 Issue 2
NZJHRM 23(2)1-19
Strategy as
Practice
lens for
SHRM
research
Page | 7
(2009) further supports these findings where they argue that integration is unlikely to stem merely
“from bringing people together” (p. 1256). In their work, exclusion from strategic discourse was
found to be possible, even if physical inclusion is granted, and actors are active. Further scholarship
should therefore use an SAP lens to pay attention to where and under what contextual conditions
HRM strategy is developed or conceived, and the role of social capital in successful
implementation. Studies that incorporate strong personal connections, as well as shared values and
managerial beliefs between Business Unit HR Director interactions, would be useful in this
respect.
Middle Managers
The roles of middle managers and employees within the HRM process have remained
underestimated (Nishii et al., 2008; Wright & Nishii, 2013). Currie and Procter (2001) Mayrhofer
et al.(2004), and Purcell and Hutchinson (2007) all contend that there is a dearth of literature that
examines the interactions across different levels of management in the operationalisation of HR
(Stanton et al., 2010a). Brewster et al., (2013) make a strong argument that there now exists a need
to link the ‘who’ and the ‘how’ together in understanding not only HRM policy design but the
development of the actual processes that accompany broader strategic policy. SAP scholarship and
an SAP lens can offer value around the role and struggle of middle managers in participative HRM
strategy practice and process.
In the domain of strategic management, Mintzberg and Waters (1990) drew attention to
decision-making, arguing that decisions do not always precede organisational action. They contend
that in some instances decisions to act simply do not exist. Rather, actions occur through many
complex frameworks such as social systems. These occur without consensus and inadvertently
snowball. Subsequently, Mintzberg and Waters (1990) maintain it is through actions that we are
best able to observe strategy, as action leaves an evidence trail that decisions may not always be
able to provide.
3. INCORPORATING MULTIPLE LEVELS OF ANALYSIS
Thirdly, compared to research fields like strategic management, there has been a slow uptake within
HRM to embrace multi-level perspectives (Liao et al., 2009; Renkema et al., 2016). While SHRM
valued broader stakeholder perspectives and sought to understand stakeholder relationships during
its inception, over time it has moved to focus almost exclusively on shareholders (performance
agendas) at the exclusion of all other stakeholder perspectives (Wright & Steinbach, 2022).
Assessments of the literature from analytical HRM scholars (see Boxall and Purcell, 2010) argue
that inattention to multiple levels of analysis runs the risk of misdirected interpretation of empirical
work (Nishii & Wright, 2008).
Yet, “despite a growing belief that multi-level research is necessary to advance human resource
management’s understanding, there remains a lack of multi-level thinking the application of
principles for multi-level theory building” (Renkema et al., 2016, p. 204). Existing scholarship also
entails the dominant application of top-down approaches to multi-level analysis (Renkema et al.,
2017). SAP has used multi-level perspectives effectively in its scholarship (e.g. Jarzabkowski &
Spee, 2009), and such approaches lend themselves to the criticisms of the current state of multi-
level analysis within HRM.
Renkema et al. (2017) note in their extensive review of HRM multi-level analysis, “although
many studies have conducted HRM-performance research at more than one level, few have gone
beyond top-down empirical considerations, composition-based emergence, and two levels of
analysis”. The role of senior management’s contribution to the development of the HRF has
received considerable attention (Boxall & Purcell, 2011; Guest, 1997; Macky & Boxall, 2007;
Wright et al., 1994), yet in line with the SAP and HRM-as-practice agenda, the role and importance
of HR managers’ relationships with other parties requires attention as does the quality of managers
NZJHRM 2023: Vol 23 Issue 2
NZJHRM 23(2)1-19
Strategy as
Practice
lens for
SHRM
research
Page | 8
(Kaufman, 2020), and the sense of shared purpose/meaning between actors at of different levels
within the organisation (Wright, 2021).
Intended and Actual Implementation
As with strategic management scholarship, the identification of gaps between intended and actual
HRM practices has emerged (McGovern et al., 1997). In such implementations, the consistency
and quality of implementation differed extensively (McGovern et al., 1997). Scholarship remains
underdeveloped where attention is paid first to the intended practice and then to the actual
implemented practice. In HRM scholarship, Woodrow and Guest (2014) have addressed this in
relation to specified HR practices about bullying, but significant opportunities also exist around the
development and implementation of HR strategic initiatives where practices are designed at higher
levels (HR-Director/senior manager for example), yet implemented at lower levels (HR
practitioner/line manager) with the outcomes of formulation and implementation occurring at the
employee level. Pursuing such work in case settings would allow for contextually relevant
phenomena to be adequately accounted for.
Strategic Work with the Line
While the role of senior managers has been a central focus of HR scholarship, there is a growing
body of evidence that supports the importance of line managers in HR strategy (Stanton et al.,
2010b). Yet, despite this, there has been limited attention paid to understanding line manager roles
(Brewster et al., 2013), particularly around the expectations and criteria for bringing them into the
explicit strategic fold. Overall, literature on HR performance assumes the importance of the HRF,
without accounting for line managers (Brewster et al., 2013; Currie & Procter, 2001; Gollan, 2012;
Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007). As Brewster et al. (2013) note, where HR scholarship has
incorporated line managers, it has occurred along the content and process lines of scholarship. In
the case of the former, the objective has been to focus on the HR practices themselves, while with
the latter, concern falls on examining the process and the strength of HR systems (Brewster et al.,
2013; Li, Frenkel, & Sanders, 2011).
Literature within the process view of scholarship has looked at line manager perceptions of HR
systems, and subsequent outcomes stemming from this (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004; Li et al., 2011;
Sanders, Dorenbosch, & de Reuver, 2008). This research has been concerned with the level of
consensus between HR managers and line managers. The outcomes of this research like that
undertaken at the senior manager levels of analysis - have largely focused on comparing accounts
between HR practitioners and line managers as a means to ‘confirm or contest role transformation’
(Pritchard, 2010). SAP scholarship opens up many avenues, particularly around sensemaking and
strategy at different levels beyond senior managers, including unintended strategies and outcomes,
to how frontline workers realise strategy (e.g.Balogun & Johnson, 2005) through their daily work
(e.g. Balogun, Best, & Lê, 2015)
Line Manager HR Function Interaction
Tension from line management towards the role transformation of the HRF was addressed in the
early work of Legge (1978). Her work identified legitimacy pressures from line managers.
Whittaker and Marchington (2003) also paint a picture that very little has changed in the perceptions
of line managers towards the HRF. They contend that many criticisms of HRM come from line
managers, manifesting in one or more of four predominant arrangements.
The first is that HR practitioners are ‘out of touch’ with the realities of the commercial world (e.g.
HR practitioners cannot adequately understand the customer and the nature of operational business
or strategic goals). Accordingly, decisions by HR are made with little regard to the important
dynamic of competitive positioning. The second criticism is the HRF’s focus on labour relations.
NZJHRM 2023: Vol 23 Issue 2
NZJHRM 23(2)1-19
Strategy as
Practice
lens for
SHRM
research
Page | 9
This has been reported to frustrate and constrain the autonomy of line managers who must make
decisions aligned to performance. Third, the HRF is slow reacting, even unresponsive, and
unnecessarily judicious in their checking of options. Finally, the HRF develops policies that sound
fine in theory but are difficult to implement. This is in part because the HRF pays little regard to
the contextual aspects of that work environment.
Such contextual elements have illustrated tensions between prescriptive, aspirational and ideal
states of HRM and actual practices (Caldwell, 2001). As business units become more autonomous
and self-sufficient (Caldwell, 2001), the nature of HR work with these units - including line
management - needs understanding. The focus of scholarship provides “role descriptions to either
confirm or contest role transformation” (Pritchard, 2010, p. 176), yet the empirical work that
investigates how this HR work is undertaken is relatively limited (Björkman et al., 2014; Farndale
& Brewster, 2005; Pritchard, 2010; Watson, 2004). Further advances can be considered using an
SAP lens around how interactions occur at this level. SAP’s socio-materiality (e.g. Kaplan, 2011)
is a central theme of SAP Scholarship. Advances can also be considered in applying this approach
to understand what artefacts are used in HR strategic work in conjunction with identifying what
sensemaking structures are used to justify interaction. It would be useful to understand what, where,
and why praxis is employed between line managers and the HRF.
4. ATTENDING TO WITHIN-FIRM STAKEHOLDER VARIABILITY
The final area where we suggest that an SAP lens would be useful pertains to understanding within-
firm stakeholder variability, or accounting for the fact that individuals and groups within the same
firm are not the same.
Not paying enough attention to the context within SHRM has resulted in a poor understanding
of within-firm stakeholder variability. For example, do all business units within the same
organisation share the same ideals and beliefs around what strategy is, what the value of the HRF
is and what practices and praxis entail results in the HRF being strategically useful? Nishii and
Wright (2007) argued a decade and a half ago that little was known about the HR process that leads
to enhanced performance. They argued accordingly that it is not clear if “HR practices exert their
effects through similar means across organisations… they most likely do not” (p. 6). Actions,
attitudes, foundational beliefs, and relationship structures that represent the various non-HR/HR
groupings offer the potential to represent rich areas of difference (Björkman et al., 2014).
Subsequently, while practices and praxis among HR practitioners and various organisational
business units may vary, the literature seemingly does not generally account for this (Nishii &
Wright, 2007, 2008). Jackson et al. (2014), for example, reviewed 154 relevant studies to determine
that only 30 looked at environmental factors as antecedents of HRM systems. They note that,
despite early HR research being acutely mindful of context, and the importance of internal and
external environmental factors in the creation and design of HR systems, such environmental
factors within contemporary scholarship have now largely been relegated to control variables.
Indeed, the positivist positions of traditional literature have left an enduring legacy of
organisations being treated homogeneously (Parkes & Borland, 2012). As a result, Jackson et al.
(2014) note that, despite sizeable inter-firm variability, little is still known about how and when HR
systems emerge. We argue, given the dominance of inter-firm studies, that the state of the
literature’s understanding of intra-firm, or within-firm, variability is significantly less.
Intra-Unit Variability
The discourse surrounding within-firm variability largely addressed within the literature has not
framed variability as something in need of being investigated and understood, but rather as
something in need of being overcome. Such dialogue has come from the dominant positivist
positions within the scholarship and because of the challenges that variability has presented - given
the measurement and analytical approaches employed with positivist scholarship. While
NZJHRM 2023: Vol 23 Issue 2
NZJHRM 23(2)1-19
Strategy as
Practice
lens for
SHRM
research
Page | 10
perspectives on intra-firm variability may vary between differing positivist camps of scholarship,
a commonality between all groups has seen calls for redress directed towards finding a remedy for
an ailment.
Such inattention surrounds taking a step towards understanding how HR strategies and systems
are perceived by different business units, what variations of actions occur between different units
because of this, what contextual elements drive or surround variations of action, and, how possible
variations emerge.In the traditional strategic management literature, little empirical attention has
been directed towards the important issue of "the way strategists act within their worlds"
(Jarzabkowski & Spee, 2009, p.83). This is addressed within an SAP lens. Looking at how strategic
episodes unfold within different business units is fully cognisant of SAP and something further
scholarship should consider. The need to do so in HRM stems from research that has shown that
unified directions of shared understanding, between units and within units, do not necessarily exist
even with a single function such as the HRF itself (Pritchard, 2010).
The implicit assumptions that single organisational respondents correctly represent the
experiences and opinions of all organisational members when reviewing HR practices can result in
missing the variations that moderate the HR performance link (Nishii & Wright, 2008). Such
variability is inherently linked to the importance and impact of contextual differences (Jackson et
al., 2014), and is illustrated by the complexity of the HRF in itself (Welch & Welch, 2012). It is “a
multi-role unit, answering to multiple constituencies” (Stiles & Trevor, 2006, p. 62). Role conflict
may emerge given the context surrounding dealing with these multiple constituencies (Björkman
et al., 2014; Caldwell, 2003; Welch & Welch, 2012).
If we are to treat context in degrees of granularity, inter-firm and macro contexts are coarser by
necessity. Work such as that of Wright et al. (2003), while attending to business units within the
same firm, has emphasised contextual refinement of the macro level. Jarzabkowski (2004), within
SAP scholarship, has indicated finer grain contexts exist and related them to the recursive and
adaptive tendencies of doing strategic work. In addition to the macro level of context, she illustrates
the within-firm context, the micro-context, and actor cognition levels of context.
The aforementioned bodies of work imply that contextual parameters at different levels of
granularity illustrate different tensions and pressures being placed on organisational groups or
members. As such, these contexts play into the undertaking of strategic activity. At a coarser level,
context by design can only clump larger elements together. At a finer level, we are presented with
the ability to observe variations between units, practitioner groups, and individual actors.
In SAP scholarship, Ambrosini et al. (2007), for example, not only identified strategic
differences between two organisational units tasked with the same objective but used the resource-
based view as a means to determine the elements of superior performance. Deductive and inductive
strategy-making approaches (Regner, 2005; Regnér, 2003, 2008) as well as creative adaptions (e.g.
Mantere, 2005, 2008) in the doing of strategic work when applied through Jarzabkowski’s (2004)
context model, show the between-unit variation possible with the HRF BU relationship, and how
they affect, or are affected by, other within-firm organisational units.
BU- HRF Interactions
Within HR scholarship, attending to strategic integration and accounting for the varied interactions
between the unit and the HRF has not been well illustrated or understood. This is despite scholarship
suggesting that such variations not only exist but evolve and unfold within situated activity
(Pritchard, 2010; Truss et al., 2002).
Scholarship presents a good understanding of the difficulties of HR integrating into the strategic
process (Bach et al., Kessler, White, & Harris, 2005; Boyne et al., 1999; Jamrog & Overholt, 2004;
Procter & Currie, 1999; Truss, 2003). However, this needs to extend understanding how HR
practitioners operate (Truss & Gill, 2009). We argue the variance of interactions between different
units and the HRF presents a means to achieve this. Expectant HR roles by business units and the
adherence to roles cannot be assumed to be the same (cf. Björkman et al., 2014), nor can
homogeneous role expectations and enacted roles between units be assumed.
NZJHRM 2023: Vol 23 Issue 2
NZJHRM 23(2)1-19
Strategy as
Practice
lens for
SHRM
research
Page | 11
Variations of practices that stem from various levels of contextual difference may also occur
around different employee groups where different HRM systems are utilised. Scholarship
investigating different employee segments, and the practices surrounding these different segments,
has been largely absent from the literature (Boxall, 2012; Jackson et al., 2014) and should be
considered. Within organisations not all employees necessarily contribute in the same manner
(Huselid et al., 2005; Lepak & Snell, 1999b), while not all employees may be valued in the same
manner (Boxall, 2012; Jackson et al., 2014; Lepak et al., 2006; Lepak & Snell, 1999b). That is, not
every employee may be treated as ‘unique and valuable’ (Lepak & Snell, 1999a; Siebert &
Zubanov, 2009). While there is an overall absence of scholarship examining employee
segmentation, there is a particular dearth that seeks to undertake what these differences are, and
how these vary in terms of practices and daily HR activities (Boxall, 1996; Jackson et al., 2014).
Boxall (2012) argues it is “unwise to generalise about HR practices from [other] sectors…, [yet]
we should not, however, rule out lessons about how to improve HRM in different contexts that are
formed at the level of general principle” (p. 175). Boxall (2012) proposes, as a first step towards
addressing such issues, the need to identify the HR systems a firm has, and evaluate the fit within
its unfolding circumstances. Better understanding how such systems come to be, and how the HRF
deals with these on a strategic basis would be of merit.
In addition to the need to understand the practices within an HR system, it is also important to
address the multiple HRM systems’ co-existence, and the dynamics of this co-existence (Jackson
et al., 2014). This is where focusing on the variability of action can be beneficial as opposed to
the unit of analysis being the intention (Mintzberg & Waters, 1990). Ruiner et al., (2013) found
that highly skilled knowledge workers themselves, rather than the firm, drove HR systems. Jackson
et al. (2014) note that these systems are not static, but despite this, little enquiry has looked at the
reciprocal dynamics of different systems influencing each other, and the vertical and horizontal
forces exerted by employees within these systems. Addressing this, however, requires what Boxall
(2014) calls going beyond counting practices, to see not only what is done, but how it is done,
where differences exist, and what strategic explanations and implications can be gauged from
identified variations.
Scholarship has also shown that the possibility exists for leadership styles within business units
to influence the usefulness of HRM systems (Chuang et al., 2016). In addition to this, highly skilled
workers themselves may influence the construct of the HR system (Ruiner et al., 2013). This is
subsequent to the influence of line managers outside of formal and strategic initiatives (Truss et al.,
2002). The potential for variability within and between units is therefore highly likely. Yet, how
this influences what being strategic entails, in terms of action and belief, is not yet well understood
(Björkman et al., 2014). Using an SAP lens allows for the use of a discursive approach to
understanding this (e.g. Mantere & Vaara, 2008)
Using an SAP lens involves recognising managers as active agents who mould and modify
initiatives, rather than as passive receivers of strategy, structure, and change (Balogun & Johnson,
2005; Knights & McCabe, 1998; Stensaker & Falkenberg, 2007; Whittington et al., 2003). This
lens helps to develop an understanding of the role actors play in influencing variances between
intended and actual implementation. Scholarship painting management as the ‘invisible hand’ that
influences HRM practices is not useful (Kaufman, 2020). This is noteworthy as what is intended
and what is implemented through HRM may be vastly different (Truss & Gratton, 1994; Wright &
Snell, 1998).
Future research in this area should therefore focus on explanations around the agency and action
gap where a body of research outside of HRM shows the divergent paths that implemented strategy
can take. This research at face value offers the ability to conceptually extend Guest and Bos-Nehles’
(2013) model by attending to the paths and causes of variances in implementation. This would also
continue the empirical path of Woodrow and Guest (2014) towards understanding the
implementation of practices. If indeed implemented HRM policies are not leading to the desired
results, as indicated by Woodrow and Guest (2014), then a richer understanding of how this takes
place is warranted, drawing upon other veins of strategic management literature or by adding to the
research literature to do so.
NZJHRM 2023: Vol 23 Issue 2
NZJHRM 23(2)1-19
Strategy as
Practice
lens for
SHRM
research
Page | 12
CONCLUSION
By incorporating an SAP lens, this paper describes four possible fruitful research areas for
improving our understanding of the important role that context plays in strategic HRM: 1. Being
more strategic; 2. Strategy-making settings; 3. Incorporating multiple levels of analysis; and 4.
Attending to within-firm stakeholder variability. These four areas intersect at the crossroads of the
SAP literature, HR role theory, and SHRM literature. We noted that broader HRM research has
been criticised for not incorporating significant advances in neighbouring disciplines, in this case
around advances in SAP, which affords greater consideration to all organisational actors and their
actions by focusing on the micro activities of people beyond senior managers alone. We posit that
it is an ideal lens to use to advance gaps within the scholarship around contextually significant
phenomena at the macro, meso and micro levels of analysis of strategic phenomena in HRM. It also
offers a sound theoretical positioning to account for strategic practices and praxis carried out by
broader groups of strategically significant stakeholders who can make sense of contextually
relevant phenomena.
We have highlighted possible areas of advancement where an SAP lens can contribute to the
advancement of SHRM and HR role theory domains by introducing alternative theoretical
resources which may be used to address the identified gaps. The first section of our paper illustrates
that, despite a substantive number of prescriptive articles outlining what being strategic should
entail, there is little empirical strategic evidence of what stakeholders believe being strategic entails.
Particularly we note that strategically relevant actors include HR professionals, line managers, and
employees, and each may be likely to undertake differing socially embedded practices in their
strategic activities while also making sense of strategic praxis in differing ways. We argue that it is
useful to understand these phenomena, and that an SAP lens is the best mechanism to do so. We
note the need to readdress Legge’s, (1978) and Guest & King’s (2004) influential works around the
legitimacy of the HRF and the vicious circles that have hindered HR practitioners' operational
effectiveness and strategic integration using an SAP lens. This particularly allows for sensemaking
to be employed around disconnections between various HR and non-HR actors.
We also note that possibilities exist to use Golden and Ramanujam’s (1985) strategic linkage
framework when viewed through an SAP lens to address contextual influence and how HR roles
are performed by HR practitioners within different contexts. Further, the opportunity exists to better
understand how different strategic coalitions conceive and seek to influence strategic activities
around HRM strategic formulation and implementation as well as how identity influences how
HRM strategy is conceived and acted upon.
In our second identified area, we argue that viewing strategy making settings through an SAP
lens will allow a better understanding around HR phenomena when looking at who is involved,
what praxis occurs, and how and where HR-related praxis occurs. We identified gaps in the
boardroom setting (identifying how the board interacts around HRM-related strategic phenomena),
along with the glaring gap in scholarship attending to the practices and praxis utilised by HRM-
aligned board members within this environment. We also highlight the need to better understand
the roles of proximity and social capital around influencing strategic HRM activities, and the need
to better understand middle manager influences around formulation and implementation of SHRM.
Our third area of identified research opportunity attends to incorporating multiple levels of
analysis, which involves understanding relationships between board members, senior managers,
middle managers, line managers and employees. This attends to focusing on very important
stakeholders in HRM and the interactions and relationships occurring between them surrounding
strategic phenomena. Here the focus rests on understanding that perspectives, priorities, and actions
may all differ. What is formulated by senior managers may not manifest in implementation due to
differences in sensemaking or a multitude of other reasons. We present valuable opportunities to
advance scholarship around understanding how and why this may occur.
Finally, we present the need for future research to consider within-firm stakeholder variability
using an SAP lens. The overarching intent of our position is to encourage future scholarship that
NZJHRM 2023: Vol 23 Issue 2
NZJHRM 23(2)1-19
Strategy as
Practice
lens for
SHRM
research
Page | 13
addresses contextual elements that surround variations of action, and, how possible variations
emerge within the same organisation, and even the same business unit. Options exist for expanded
understanding if all HR practitioners in the same HR function make sense of the strategic
phenomena in the same way, while accounting for how different business units within the same
firm frame strategic HRM and conceive what is strategic and what is not. Opportunities also exist
to investigate if BU senior managers have a shared understanding with their staff of what HR
strategic work entails.
It is important to note that our agenda is far from exclusive, and there may be a myriad of other
opportunities beyond those we mention in which an SAP lens is likely to be additive. In conclusion,
we have advocated an SAP lens here in this paper as we believe this best brings humans back into
the SHRM agenda and rectifies issues around SHRM focusing too much on economic performance
to the detriment of understanding humans' role in setting HRM strategic initiatives and interpreting
their outcomes.
REFERENCES
Alvesson, M., & Kärreman, D. (2007). Unraveling HRM: Identity, ceremony, and control in a
management consulting firm. Organization Science, 18(4), 711-723.
Ambrosini, V., Bowman, C., & Burton-Taylor, S. (2007). Inter-team coordination activities as a
source of customer satisfaction. Human Relations, 60(1), 59-98.
Anderson, D. W., Melanson, S. J., & Maly, J. (2007). The evolution of corporate governance:
Power redistribution brings boards to life. Corporate Governance: An International
Review, 15(5), 780-797.
Apascaritei, P., & Elvira, M. M. (2021). Dynamizing human resources: An integrative review of
SHRM and dynamic capabilities research. Human Resource Management Review,
100878.
Bach, S., Kessler, I., White, G., & Harris, L. (2005). UK public sector reform and the
“performance agenda” in UK local government: HRM challenges and dilemmas.
Personnel Review, 34(6), 681-696.
Balogun, J., Best, K., & Lê, J. (2015). Selling the object of strategy: How frontline workers
realize strategy through their daily work. Organization Studies.
Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2005). From intended strategies to unintended outcomes: The impact
of change recipient sensemaking. Organization Studies, 26(11), 1573-1601.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management,
17(1), 99-120.
Barney, J. B., & Wright, P. M. (1997). On becoming a strategic partner: The role of human
resources in gaining competitive advantage.
Beletskiy, A., & Fey, C. F. (2021). HR ambidexterity and absorptive capacities: A paradox‐based
approach to HRM capabilities and practice adoption in mnc subsidiaries. Human
Resource Management, 60(6), 863-883.
Björkman, I., Ehrnrooth, M., Mäkelä, K., Smale, A., & Sumelius, J. (2014). From HRM practices
to the practice of HRM: Setting a research agenda. Journal of Organizational
Effectiveness: People and Performance, 1(2), 122-140.
Björkman, I., Ehrnrooth, M., Smale, A., & John, S. (2011). The determinants of line management
internalisation of HRM practices in MNC subsidiaries. The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 22(8), 1654-1671.
Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding hrm-firm performance linkages: The role of
the "strength" of the HRM system. Academy of Management Review, 29(2), 203-221.
doi:10.5465/AMR.2004.12736076
Bower, J. L. (1970). Managing the resource allocation process: A study of corporate planning and
investment.
NZJHRM 2023: Vol 23 Issue 2
NZJHRM 23(2)1-19
Strategy as
Practice
lens for
SHRM
research
Page | 14
Boxall, P. (1996). The strategic HRM debate and the resource‐based view of the firm. Human
Resource Management Journal, 6(3), 59-75.
Boxall, P. (2012). High‐performance work systems: What, why, how and for whom? Asia Pacific
Journal of Human Resources, 50(2), 169-186.
Boxall, P. (2014). The future of employment relations from the perspective of human resource
management. Journal of Industrial Relations, 0022185614527980.
Boxall, P., Bainbridge, H., & Frenkel, S. (2018). Styles of HRM in Australia and New Zealand. In
Handbook of Research on Comparative Human Resource Management: Edward Elgar
Publishing.
Boxall, P., & Purcell, J. (2010). An HRM perspective on employee participation. In The Oxford
Handbook of Participation in Organizations.
Boxall, P., & Purcell, J. (2011). Strategy and Human Resource Management (3rd ed.). New York:
Palgrave Macmillian.
Boyne, G., Poole, M., & Jenkins, G. (1999). Human resource management in the public and
private sectors: An empirical comparison. Public Administration, 77(2), 407-420.
Brandl, J., & Pohler, D. (2010). The human resource department's role and conditions that affect
its development: Explanations from Austrian CEOs. Human Resource Management,
49(6), 1025-1046.
Brewster, C., Gollan, P. J., & Wright, P. M. (2013). Guest editors' note: Human resource
management and the line. Human Resource Management, 52(6), 829-838.
Buller, P. F. (1988). Successful partnerships: HR and strategic planning at eight top firms.
Organizational Dynamics, 17(2), 27-43.
Caldwell, R. (2001). Champions, adapters, consultants and synergists: The new change agents in
HRM. Human Resource Management Journal, 11(3), 39-52.
Caldwell, R. (2003). The changing roles of personnel managers: Old ambiguities, new
uncertainties. Journal of Management Studies, 40(4), 983-1004.
Caldwell, R. (2008). HR business partner competency models: Re‐contextualising effectiveness.
Human Resource Management Journal, 18(3), 275-294.
Caldwell, R. (2011). HR directors in UK boardrooms: A search for strategic influence or symbolic
capital? Employee Relations, 33(1), 40-63.
Chadwick, C., & Flinchbaugh, C. (2021). Searching for competitive advantage in the HRM-firm
performance relationship. Academy of Management Perspectives, 35(2), 181-207.
Chuang, C.-H., Jackson, S. E., & Jiang, Y. (2016). Can knowledge-intensive teamwork be
managed? Examining the roles of HRM systems, leadership, and tacit knowledge.
Journal of Management, 42(2), 524-554.
Cooke, F. L., Xiao, M., & Chen, Y. (2021). Still in search of strategic human resource
management? A review and suggestions for future research with China as an example.
Human Resource Management, 60(1), 89-118.
Cordier, J., & Marin, A. (2017). The role of client knowledge in consulting projects: Explorative,
exploitative and ambidextrous approaches. In G. Manville, O. Matthias, & J. Campbell
(Eds.), Management consultancy insights and real consultancy projects. London:
Routledge.
Currie, G., & Procter, S. (2001). Exploring the relationship between HR and middle managers.
Human Resource Management Journal, 11(3), 53-69.
Dundon, T., & Rafferty, A. (2018). The (potential) demise of HRM? Human Resource
Management Journal, 28(3), 377-391.
Farndale, E., & Brewster, C. (2005). In search of legitimacy: Personnel management associations
worldwide. Human Resource Management Journal, 15(3), 33-48.
Gilmore, S., & Williams, S. (2007). Conceptualising the “personnel professional” a critical
analysis of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development's professional
qualification scheme. Personnel Review, 36(3), 398-414.
NZJHRM 2023: Vol 23 Issue 2
NZJHRM 23(2)1-19
Strategy as
Practice
lens for
SHRM
research
Page | 15
Golden, K. A., & Ramanujam, V. (1985). Between a dream and a nightmare: On the integration of
the human resource management and strategic business planning processes. Human
Resource Management, 24(4), 429-452.
Gollan, P. J. (2012). HR on the line: Human resource managers' contribution to organisational
value and workplace performance. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 50(3), 288-
307.
Golsorkhi, D., Rouleau, L., & Seidl, D. (2010). Cambridge handbook of strategy as practice:
Cambridge University Press.
Grant, R. M. (2016). Contemporary strategy analysis: Text and cases edition: John Wiley & Sons.
Guest, D., & Bos-Nehles, A. (2013). HRM and performance: The role of effective
implementation.
Guest, D., & King, Z. (2004). Power, innovation and problem‐solving: The personnel managers’
three steps to heaven? Journal of Management Studies, 41(3), 401-423.
Guest, D. E. (1987). Human resource management and industrial relations. Journal of
Management Studies, 24(5), 503-521.
Guest, D. E. (1997). Human resource management and performance: A review and research
agenda. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8(3), 263-276.
Hambrick, D. C. (2004). The disintegration of strategic management: It's time to consolidate our
gains. In: Sage Publications.
Harney, B., & Collings, D. G. (2021). Navigating the shifting landscapes of HRM. Human
Resource Management Review, 31(4), 100824.
Heizmann, H., & Fox, S. (2019). O partner, where art thou? A critical discursive analysis of hr
managers’ struggle for legitimacy. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 30(13), 2026-2048.
Hendry, K. P., Kiel, G. C., & Nicholson, G. (2010). How boards strategise: A strategy as practice
view. Long Range Planning, 43(1), 33-56.
Huselid, M. A., Beatty, R. W., & Becker, B. E. (2005). ‘A players’ or ‘a positions’? Harvard
Business Review, 83(12), 110-117.
Jackson, S. E., Schuler, R. S., & Jiang, K. (2014). An aspirational framework for strategic human
resource management. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 1-56.
Jamrog, J. J., & Overholt, M. H. (2004). Building a strategic HR function: Continuing the
evolution. People and Strategy, 27(1), 51.
Jarzabkowski, P. (2004). Strategy as practice: Recursiveness, adaptation, and practices-in-use.
Organization Studies, 25(4), 529-560.
Jarzabkowski, P., & Balogun, J. (2009). The practice and process of delivering integration
through strategic planning. Journal of Management Studies, 46(8), 1255-1288.
Jarzabkowski, P., Balogun, J., & Seidl, D. (2007). Strategizing: The challenges of a practice
perspective. Human Relations, 60(1), 5-27.
Jarzabkowski, P., Paul Spee, A., & Smets, M. (2013). Material artifacts: Practices for doing
strategy with ‘stuff’. European Management Journal, 31(1), 41-54.
Jarzabkowski, P., & Spee, A. P. (2009). Strategy‐as‐practice: A review and future directions for
the field. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(1), 69-95.
Jarzabkowski, P., & Whittington, R. (2008). A strategy-as-practice approach to strategy research
and education. Journal of Management Inquiry, 17(4), 282-286.
Johnson, G., Melin, L., & Whittington, R. (2003a). Guest editors’ introduction micro strategy and
strategizing: Towards an activity-based view. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 0022-
2380.
Johnson, G., Melin, L., & Whittington, R. (2003b). Micro strategy and strategizing: Towards an
activity‐based view. Journal of Management Studies, 40(1), 3-22.
Kaplan, S. (2011). Strategy and PowerPoint: An inquiry into the epistemic culture and machinery
of strategy making. Organization Science, 22(2), 320-346.
NZJHRM 2023: Vol 23 Issue 2
NZJHRM 23(2)1-19
Strategy as
Practice
lens for
SHRM
research
Page | 16
Kaufman, B. E. (2020). The real problem: The deadly combination of psychologisation,
scientism, and normative promotionalism takes strategic human resource management
down a 30‐year dead end. Human Resource Management Journal, 30(1), 49-72.
Kelly, J., & Gennard, J. (2007). Business strategic decision making: The role and influence of
directors. Human Resource Management Journal, 17(2), 99-117.
Knights, D., & McCabe, D. (1998). When" life is but a dream": Obliterating politics through
business process reengineering? Human Relations, 51(6), 761-798.
Kohtamäki, M., Whittington, R., Vaara, E., & Rabetino, R. (2022). Making connections:
Harnessing the diversity of strategy‐as‐practice research. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 24(2), 210-232.
Lawler, E., & Boudreau, J. (2015). Global trends in human resource management: A twenty-year
analysis: Stanford University Press.
Legge, K. (1978). Power, innovation, and problem-solving in personnel management: MacGraw-
Hill Book Company.
Legge, K. (1995). Human rresource management: Rhetorics and realities. Basingstoke: McMillan.
Lepak, D., & Snell, S. (1999a). The strategic management of human capital: Determinants and
implications of different relationships. Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 1-18.
Lepak, D. P., Liao, H., Chung, Y., & Harden, E. E. (2006). A conceptual review of human
resource management systems in strategic human resource management research.
Research in personnel and human resources management, 25(1), 217-271.
Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. (1999b). The human resource architecture: Toward a theory of human
capital allocation and development. Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 31-48.
Li, X., Frenkel, S. J., & Sanders, K. (2011). Strategic HRM as process: How HR system and
organizational climate strength influence Chinese employee attitudes. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(9), 1825-1842.
Liao, H., Toya, K., Lepak, D. P., & Hong, Y. (2009). Do they see eye to eye? Management and
employee perspectives of high-performance work systems and influence processes on
service quality. JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY, 94(2), 371.
Macky, K., & Boxall, P. (2007). The relationship between ‘high-performance work practices’ and
employee attitudes: An investigation of additive and interaction effects. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(4), 537-567.
Mäkelä, K., Björkman, I., Ehrnrooth, M., Smale, A., & Sumelius, J. (2013). Explaining
stakeholder evaluations of HRM capabilities in MNC subsidiaries. Journal of
International Business Studies, 44(8), 813-832.
Mantere, S. (2005). Strategic practices as enablers and disablers of championing activity.
Strategic organization, 3(2), 157-184.
Mantere, S. (2008). Role expectations and middle manager strategic agency. Journal of
Management Studies, 45(2), 294-316.
Mantere, S., & Vaara, E. (2008). On the problem of participation in strategy: A critical discursive
perspective. Organization Science, 19(2), 341-358.
Mayrhofer, W., Gooderham, P. N., & Brewster, C. (2019). Context and HRM: Theory, evidence,
and proposals. International Studies of Management & Organization, 49(4), 355-371.
Mayrhofer, W., Müller-Camen, M., Ledolter, J., Strunk, G., & Erten, C. (2004). Devolving
responsibilities for human resources to line management? An empirical study about
convergence in Europe. Journal for East European Management Studies, 123-146.
McGovern, P., Gratton, L., Hope‐Hailey, V., Stiles, P., & Truss, C. (1997). Human resource
management on the line? Human Resource Management Journal, 7(4), 12-29.
Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C., Meyer, A. D., & Coleman, H. J. (1978). Organizational strategy,
structure, and process. Academy of Management Review, 3(3), 546-562.
Mintzberg, H., & Waters, J. A. (1990). Tracking strategy in an entrepreneurial firm. Family
Business Review, 3(3), 285-315.
NZJHRM 2023: Vol 23 Issue 2
NZJHRM 23(2)1-19
Strategy as
Practice
lens for
SHRM
research
Page | 17
Nishii, L. H., Lepak, D. P., & Schneider, B. (2008). Employee attributions of the “why” of HR
practices: Their effects on employee attitudes and behaviors, and customer satisfaction.
Personnel Psychology, 61(3), 503-545.
Nishii, L. H., & Wright, P. M. (2007). Variability within organizations: Implications for strategic
human resource management.
Nishii, L. H., & Wright, P. M. (2008). Variability within organizations: Implications for strategic
human resource management. In D. B. Smith (Ed.), The people make the place: Dynamic
linkages between individuals and organizations. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Orlikowski, W. J., Golsorkhi, D., Rouleau, L., Seidl, D., & Vaara, E. (2010). Practice in research:
Phenomenon, perspective and philosophy. Cambridge handbook of strategy as practice,
23-33.
Parkes, C., & Borland, H. (2012). Strategic HRM: Transforming its responsibilities toward
ecological sustainability—the greatest global challenge facing organizations. Thunderbird
International Business Review, 54(6), 811-824.
Parkes, C., & Davis, A. J. (2013). Ethics and social responsibility–do hr professionals have the
‘courage to challenge’ or are they set to be permanent ‘bystanders?’. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(12), 2411-2434.
Pritchard, K. (2010). Becoming an HR strategic partner: Tales of transition. Human Resource
Management Journal, 20(2), 175-188. doi:10.1111/j.1748-8583.2009.00107.x
Procter, S., & Currie, G. (1999). The role of the personnel function: Roles, perceptions and
processes in an nhs trust. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 10(6),
1077-1091.
Purcell, J., & Hutchinson, S. (2007). Front‐line managers as agents in the HRM‐performance
causal chain: Theory, analysis and evidence. Human Resource Management Journal,
17(1), 3-20.
Regner, P. (2005). Adaptive and creative strategy logics in strategy processes. Advances in
Strategic Management, 22(5), 189-211.
Regnér, P. (2003). Strategy creation in the periphery: Inductive versus deductive strategy making.
Journal of Management Studies, 40(1), 57-82.
Regnér, P. (2008). Strategy-as-practice and dynamic capabilities: Steps towards a dynamic view
of strategy. Human Relations, 61(4), 565-588.
Renkema, M., Meijerink, J., & Bondarouk, T. (2016). Advancing multilevel thinking and methods
in hrm research. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 3(2),
204-218.
Renkema, M., Meijerink, J., & Bondarouk, T. (2017). Advancing multilevel thinking in human
resource management research: Applications and guidelines. Human Resource
Management Review, 27(3), 397-415.
Ruiner, C., Wilkens, U., & Küpper, M. (2013). Patterns of organizational flexibility in
knowledge-intensive firms—going beyond existing concepts. Management Revue, 162-
178.
Sanders, K., Dorenbosch, L., & de Reuver, R. (2008). The impact of individual and shared
employee perceptions of HRM on affective commitment: Considering climate strength.
Personnel Review, 37(4), 412-425.
Sarvaiya, H., Eweje, G., & Arrowsmith, J. (2015). The roles of HRM in CSR: Strategic
partnership or operational support? Journal of Business Ethics, 1-13.
Schuler, R. S. (1992). Strategic human resources management: Linking the people with the
strategic needs of the business. Organizational dynamics, 21(1), 18-32.
Siebert, W. S., & Zubanov, N. (2009). Searching for the optimal level of employee turnover: A
study of a large UK retail organization. Academy of Management Journal, 52(2), 294-
313.
NZJHRM 2023: Vol 23 Issue 2
NZJHRM 23(2)1-19
Strategy as
Practice
lens for
SHRM
research
Page | 18
Stanton, P., Young, S., Bartram, T., & Leggat, S. (2010a). Singing the same song: Translating
HRM messages across management hierarchies in Australian hospitals. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(4), 567-581.
Stensaker, I., & Falkenberg, J. (2007). Making sense of different responses to corporate change.
Human Relations, 60(1), 137-177.
Stiles, P., & Trevor, J. (2006). The human resource department: Roles, coordination and influence.
In S. K. Günter & I. Björkman (Eds.), Handbook of research in international human
resource management (pp. 49). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Storey, J. (1992). Developments in the management of human resources: An analytical review.
Oxford, UK; Cambridge, Mass., USA: Blackwell.
Sumelius, J., Björkman, I., & Smale, A. (2008). The influence of internal and external social
networks on HRM capabilities in MNC subsidiaries in China. The International Journal
of Human Resource Management, 19(12), 2294-2310.
Teo, S. (2000). Evidence of strategic hrm linkages in eleven Australian corporatized public sector
organizations. Public Personnel Management, 29(4), 557-574.
Truss, C. (2003). Strategic HRM: Enablers and constraints in the NHS. International Journal of
Public Sector Management, 16(1), 48-60.
Truss, C., & Gill, J. (2009). Managing the HRM function: The role of social capital. Personnel
Review, 38(6), 674-695.
Truss, C., & Gratton, L. (1994). Strategic human resource management: A conceptual approach.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 5(3), 663-686.
Truss, C., Gratton, L., Hope‐Hailey, V., Stiles, P., & Zaleska, J. (2002). Paying the piper: Choice
and constraint in changing HRfunctional roles. Human Resource Management Journal,
12(2), 39-63.
Tsoukas, H., & Knudsen, C. (2002). The conduct of strategy research. In A. M. Pettigrew, H.
Thomas, & R. Whittington (Eds.), The handbook of strategy and management (pp. 411-
435). London: Sage.
Tsui, A. S. (1987). Defining the activities and effectiveness of the human resource department: A
multiple constituency approach. Human Resource Management, 26(1), 35-69.
Tsui, A. S. (1990). A multiple-constituency model of effectiveness: An empirical examination at
the human resource subunit level. Administrative Science Quarterly, 458-483.
Ulrich, D. (1997). Human resource champions: The next agenda for adding value and delivering
results. Boston: Harvard Business School.
Ulrich, D., & Brockbank, W. (2005). The HR value proposition: Harvard Business Press.
Vaara, E., & Whittington, R. (2012). Strategy-as-practice: Taking social practices seriously. The
Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 285-336.
Vancil, R. F., & Buddrus, L. E. (1979). Decentralization: Managerial ambiguity by design: Dow
Jones-Irwin.
Watson, T. J. (2004). HRM and critical social science analysis. Journal of Management Studies,
41(3), 447-467.
Welch, C. L., & Welch, D. E. (2012). What do HR managers really do? Management
international review, 52(4), 597-617.
Whittaker, S., & Marchington, M. (2003). Devolving HR responsibility to the line: Threat,
opportunity or partnership? Employee Relations, 25(3), 245-261.
Whittington, R. (2003). The work of strategizing and organizing: For a practice perspective.
Strategic organization, 1, 117-126.
Whittington, R. (2006). Completing the practice turn in strategy research. Organization Studies,
27(5), 613-634.
Whittington, R., Jarzabkowski, P., Mayer, M., Mounoud, E., Nahapiet, J., & Rouleau, L. (2003).
Taking strategy seriously responsibility and reform for an important social practice.
Journal of Management Inquiry, 12(4), 396-409.
NZJHRM 2023: Vol 23 Issue 2
NZJHRM 23(2)1-19
Strategy as
Practice
lens for
SHRM
research
Page | 19
Woodrow, C., & Guest, D. E. (2014). When good HR gets bad results: Exploring the challenge of
HR implementation in the case of workplace bullying. Human Resource Management
Journal, 24(1), 38-56.
Wright, P. M. (2021). Rediscovering the “human” in strategic human capital. Human Resource
Management Review, 31(4), 100781.
Wright, P. M., Dunford, B. B., & Snell, S. A. (2001). Human resources and the resource-based
view of the firm. Journal of Management, 27(6), 701-721.
Wright, P. M., Gardner, T. M., & Moynihan, L. M. (2003). The impact of HR practices on the
performance of business units. Human Resource Management Journal, 13(3), 21-36.
Wright, P. M., McMahan, G. C., & McWilliams, A. (1994). Human resources and sustained
competitive advantage: A resource-based perspective. International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 5(2), 301-326.
Wright, P. M., & Nishii, L. H. (2013). Strategic HRM and organizational behavior: Integrating
multiple levels of analysis. In J. Paauwe, D. E. Guest, & P. M. Wright (Eds.), HRM and
performance: Achievements and challenges (pp. 97-110). West Sussec, United Kingdom:
Wiley.
Wright, P. M., & Snell, S. A. (1998). Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and
flexibility in strategic human resource management. The Academy of Management
Review, 23(4), 756-772. doi:10.2307/259061
Wright, P. M., & Steinbach, A. L. (2022). Pivoting after almost 50 years of SHRM research:
Toward a stakeholder view. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 60(1), 22-40.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
Strategy-as-practice (SAP) has become one of the most vibrant areas of contemporary strategy research in the past two decades. As the field has grown significantly , we have witnessed an emergence of distinct streams of research within the SAP research community. Thus, it is time to take stock of this body of work to better understand the structure of the field and provide a refreshed agenda for future research. Our review is based on bibliometric analysis and a systematic review of 340 articles. As a result, we identify the following six clusters of research: praxis, sensemaking, discourse, sociomateriality, institutional and process. Co-citation analysis shows significant disconnects between some of these clusters. Building on our review, we identify various 'crossing strategies' for connecting across four disconnects: (i) micro and macro; (ii) sociomaterial and discourse; (iii) critical and more mainstream; and (iv) practice and process perspectives. By harnessing diversity, these crossing strategies suggest rich agendas for future SAP research, ranging from digitalization to gender inequality.
Article
Full-text available
A confluence of mega-trends mean that HR is experiencing disruption and change on an unprecedented scale. This special issue is designed to inform our understanding of these shifting landscapes of HRM. In this overview we detail the broad contextual backdrop of key changes, before providing an overview of the six articles that make up this special issue. The articles cover agile HR, HR disruption, strategic human capital, employee health and safety, HR co-creation and global flexible working arrangements. We conclude by threading key insights together with suggestions on how theory and research might seek to better embrace disruption and navigate the shifting landscapes of HRM. This includes striving for interdisciplinary insight, finding motivation in practice, looking back to go forward, using multiple pathways for understanding, challenging assumptions and accommodating HR agency. The understanding and insight offered in this special issue hold special relevance in the context of the COVID-19 crisis.
Article
Full-text available
This article examines the relationship between the capabilities of HR departments and the level of adoption of corporate HRM practices in MNC subsidiaries. To explain this relationship, we leverage paradox theorizing, still rare but gaining increasing attention in HRM research, and integrate the studies of practice transfer, organizational ambidexterity, and absorptive capacity. First, we establish the conceptual linkages between the implementation and internalization dimensions of practice adoption and the potential and realized absorptive capacities of HR departments. Second, we redefine the operational and strategic activities of HR departments in terms of the learning paradox of exploitation and exploration. Third, we introduce the concept of HR ambidexterity to describe HR departments that possess high levels of capabilities in both operational (exploitative) and strategic (explorative) task-domains. Finally, we hypothesize that ambidextrous HR departments are more adept at adopting corporate HRM practices. An analysis of the survey data from 105 foreign subsidiaries of 12 MNCs supports this single hypothesis. The main contribution of this research is in leveraging paradox theorizing to explain the nature of HRM capabilities and their role in the adoption of HRM practices.
Article
Human resource management (HRM) systems have been extensively analyzed in academic research yet limited attention has been paid to the role of HRM dynamic capabilities (DC) and their impact on resources and practices, employee well-being and firm performance. Our study bridges this gap by defining a new categorization of HRM DC based on their ultimate aims: building knowledge, advancing social integration and developing reconfiguration-enhancing mechanisms. In parallel, we offer an integrative framework to shed light on how strategic human resource management (SHRM) can accelerate HRM DC development. Through this conceptual process model and typology of capabilities, we deepen the discussion around the core components of HRM systems, HRM DC, and their effects on resources and practices, employee well-being and performance. In practical terms, HRM DC represent a promising driver of sustainable long-term organizational growth by enabling firms to boost their strategic agility and capacity to navigate in the presence of environmental dynamism.
Article
Early in the history of the Strategic Human Resource Management (SHRM) literature, writers frequently discussed stakeholders to the organization that were relevant to the Human Resources (HR) function. However, over the years the field narrowed its focus to be primarily, if not solely, on one stakeholder: the shareholders. While many authors have paid lip‐service to the fact that other stakeholders exist, little attention was devoted to what these stakeholders meant for the HR function. In this paper, we examine the current thinking around stakeholder theory in the strategic management literature, and then explore what a stakeholder view of SHRM guided by this theory might look like. We build our approach around five important HR categories – purpose, priorities, people, personal relationships, and practices – and hope that this approach can help the field pivot to a more values‐driven, stakeholder‐centered view of the HR function.
Article
Strategic human resource management (SHRM) has been an important strand of research in the HRM field for over three decades, and has attracted heated debates in recent years. One main critique of the state of SHRM research is its increasing detachment from HRM practice, in the pursuit of more theoretical rigor and methodological sophistication. Our review article has two main tasks. First, we review SHRM research published in two leading HRM journals—Human Resource Management and Human Resource Management Journal—in the light of the criticisms on SHRM research and use this as a backdrop of our second task. Second, we critically examine SHRM research conducted in the Chinese context by drawing on a systematic review on extant literature. In doing so, we draw on a wider range of HRM journals such as Human Resource Management Review, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, and so forth. We find that while the trend of psychologization in SHRM research is gathering pace, the range of theoretical perspectives mobilized to inform the studies is actually expanding. We call for SHRM research to be more contextualized and more practical phenomenon‐driven SHRM research. We indicate several avenues for future research, using China as an example.
Article
While the field of strategic human capital (SHC) was created as a platform for dialogue between economics-based strategy researchers and psychology-based human resources (HR) researchers, it has increasingly become dominated by the economics-based logic. This paper argues that while such logic is not wrong, it is incomplete. By ignoring aspects of human nature such as free will, identity, meaning/purpose, community, and intrinsic value, it has unnecessarily limited the phenomenon to be studied and the research questions to be asked. I describe these concepts and how they might expand the SHC literature's view of determinants of employees' behavior, particularly their choices to invest in human capital. Finally, I discuss implications for research questions that might bridge the economics and psychology perspectives.