King's College London

Research portal

The turn to employees in the measurement of human resource practices: A critical review and proposed way forward

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Standard

The turn to employees in the measurement of human resource practices : A critical review and proposed way forward. / Beijer, Susanne; Peccei, Riccardo; Van Veldhoven, Marc; Paauwe, Jaap.

In: HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, 27.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Harvard

Beijer, S, Peccei, R, Van Veldhoven, M & Paauwe, J 2019, 'The turn to employees in the measurement of human resource practices: A critical review and proposed way forward', HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12229

APA

Beijer, S., Peccei, R., Van Veldhoven, M., & Paauwe, J. (2019). The turn to employees in the measurement of human resource practices: A critical review and proposed way forward. HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12229

Vancouver

Beijer S, Peccei R, Van Veldhoven M, Paauwe J. The turn to employees in the measurement of human resource practices: A critical review and proposed way forward. HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL. 2019 Jan 27. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12229

Author

Beijer, Susanne ; Peccei, Riccardo ; Van Veldhoven, Marc ; Paauwe, Jaap. / The turn to employees in the measurement of human resource practices : A critical review and proposed way forward. In: HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL. 2019.

Bibtex Download

@article{fbf723e92bd246c9b0f6acf09576987b,
title = "The turn to employees in the measurement of human resource practices: A critical review and proposed way forward",
abstract = "Although initially studies examining human resource management (HRM)–outcome relationships only used management‐based ratings of HR practices, arguments have been advanced in favour of using employee‐based ratings. To examine this, a systematic analysis of HRM–outcome studies published between 2000 and 2017 is performed, which shows that over time studies have indeed increasingly made use of employees as respondents to measures of human resource (HR) practices. An in‐depth analysis of these measures of perceived HR practices revealed that various problems and issues can be identified when critically reviewing these measures. It is observed that considerable idiosyncrasy exists in measures of perceived HR practices, coupled with a lack of transparency in how these measures are often reported in existing studies. Also, a mixture of evaluative and descriptive items creates concerns about jingle fallacies in extant research and in turn about the validity of HRM–outcome results. Recommendations are provided to further advance the measurement and conceptualisation of this core construct.",
keywords = "HR practices, appraisal, construct clarity, pay, performance management, recruitment",
author = "Susanne Beijer and Riccardo Peccei and {Van Veldhoven}, Marc and Jaap Paauwe",
year = "2019",
month = jan,
day = "27",
doi = "10.1111/1748-8583.12229",
language = "English",
journal = "HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL",
issn = "0954-5395",
publisher = "WILEY-BLACKWELL",

}

RIS (suitable for import to EndNote) Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - The turn to employees in the measurement of human resource practices

T2 - A critical review and proposed way forward

AU - Beijer, Susanne

AU - Peccei, Riccardo

AU - Van Veldhoven, Marc

AU - Paauwe, Jaap

PY - 2019/1/27

Y1 - 2019/1/27

N2 - Although initially studies examining human resource management (HRM)–outcome relationships only used management‐based ratings of HR practices, arguments have been advanced in favour of using employee‐based ratings. To examine this, a systematic analysis of HRM–outcome studies published between 2000 and 2017 is performed, which shows that over time studies have indeed increasingly made use of employees as respondents to measures of human resource (HR) practices. An in‐depth analysis of these measures of perceived HR practices revealed that various problems and issues can be identified when critically reviewing these measures. It is observed that considerable idiosyncrasy exists in measures of perceived HR practices, coupled with a lack of transparency in how these measures are often reported in existing studies. Also, a mixture of evaluative and descriptive items creates concerns about jingle fallacies in extant research and in turn about the validity of HRM–outcome results. Recommendations are provided to further advance the measurement and conceptualisation of this core construct.

AB - Although initially studies examining human resource management (HRM)–outcome relationships only used management‐based ratings of HR practices, arguments have been advanced in favour of using employee‐based ratings. To examine this, a systematic analysis of HRM–outcome studies published between 2000 and 2017 is performed, which shows that over time studies have indeed increasingly made use of employees as respondents to measures of human resource (HR) practices. An in‐depth analysis of these measures of perceived HR practices revealed that various problems and issues can be identified when critically reviewing these measures. It is observed that considerable idiosyncrasy exists in measures of perceived HR practices, coupled with a lack of transparency in how these measures are often reported in existing studies. Also, a mixture of evaluative and descriptive items creates concerns about jingle fallacies in extant research and in turn about the validity of HRM–outcome results. Recommendations are provided to further advance the measurement and conceptualisation of this core construct.

KW - HR practices

KW - appraisal

KW - construct clarity

KW - pay

KW - performance management

KW - recruitment

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85062370511&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/1748-8583.12229

DO - 10.1111/1748-8583.12229

M3 - Review article

JO - HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL

JF - HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL

SN - 0954-5395

ER -

View graph of relations

© 2018 King's College London | Strand | London WC2R 2LS | England | United Kingdom | Tel +44 (0)20 7836 5454