=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=None
|storemode=property
|title=An Evidence-Based Review of E-HRM and Strategic Human Resource Management
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-570/paper004.pdf
|volume=Vol-570
}}
==An Evidence-Based Review of E-HRM and Strategic Human Resource Management==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-570/paper004.pdf
An Evidence-Based Review of E-HRM and Strategic Human Re-
source Management
Janet H. Marler, University at Albany-State University of New York, USA
marler@albany.edu
Sandra L. Fisher, Clarkson University, USA
sfisher@clarkson.edu
Abstract. One stated purpose of electronic human resource management (e-
HRM) is to make the entire HRM function more strategic. The goal of this
paper is to examine recent research in e-HRM to evaluate the cumulated
evidence on the relationship between strategic HRM and e-HRM, and to
provide evidence-based guidance to practitioners and researchers.
Specifically, we examine evidence of a relationship between e-HRM and
strategic HR, the direction of the relationship, and the resources or contexts
important for the e-HRM and strategic HR relationship to exist. We review
20 studies published from 2007-2009 using integrative synthesis as our
evidence-based methodology. Results reveal that few e-HRM empirical
studies have explicitly examined strategic issues. Less than half the studies
are at a macro-level of analysis, which is a key distinguishing feature of
research conducted in the strategic HRM domain. Furthermore, most
research only examines the relationship between e-HRM and perceived
strategic effectiveness of HRM. None directly examine other strategic
outcomes. Our review highlights the need for more empirical studies on e-
HRM and strategic HRM outcomes at a macro level.
Keywords: e-HRM; Strategic HRM, Evidence-Based Management; HRIS;
HRM.
1 Introduction
Both strategic human resource management and electronic human resource management
(e-HRM) are relatively new research streams. Strategic HRM literature emerged about
30 years ago [17] and early e-HRM studies begin appearing around 1995 [39].
Interestingly, both research streams invoke potentially transformational outcomes for
the role of human resource management within organizations. In the strategic HRM
literature, scholars focus on strategic outcomes such as organizational performance [3],
strategic alignment [37], and competitive advantage [48]. In the e-HRM literature,
researchers expect internet-based technological innovations to assist in realizing the
outcomes predicted in the strategic HRM literature. Organizational goals for e-HRM
investments include cost reduction through streamlining HRM operations [22],
Strohmeier, S.; Diederichsen, A. (Eds.), Evidence-Based e-HRM? On the way to rigorous and relevant
research, Proceedings of the Third European Academic Workshop on electronic Human Resource
Management, Bamberg, Germany, May 20-21, 2010, CEUR-WS.org, ISSN 1613-0073, Vol. 570, online:
CEUR-WS.org/Vol-570/ , pp. 33-51.
© 2010 for the individual papers by the papers´ authors. Copying permitted only for private and academic
purposes. This volume is published and copyrighted by its editors.
improved effectiveness through providing better delivery of HRM services [34] and
transformation of the HRM function to a strategic business partner [20].
Given the prominent role accorded strategic outcomes in the e-HRM literature, it is
important that researchers and practitioners have a clear picture of the accumulated
research evidence to date on this presumed relationship. The purpose of this study
therefore is to apply an integrative evidence-based framework [33] to examine recent
empirical studies on e-HRM to identify scientific research evidence concerning the
nature of e-HRM’s association with strategic HRM. We also review these papers to
ascertain what e-HRM and strategic outcome relationships are supported across studies
and what resources or contexts are important for e-HRM to be associated with strategic
outcomes and to be accepted and used by stakeholders.
After presenting definitions of strategic HRM and e-HRM, in section 3, we present our
evidence-based methodology for systematically selecting our sample of published
empirical and case study evidence linking e-HRM and strategic HRM. We apply this
methodology to direct our analysis of the evidence presented in our sample of published
research in section 4. In the final section, we synthesize the evidence, noting common
themes, gaps in our knowledge, and lessons learned.
2 Conceptualizing Strategic HRM and e-HRM
2.1 What is Strategic HRM
An early and widely accepted definition of strategic HRM is that it is “the pattern of
planned human resource deployments and activities intended to enable an organization
to achieve its goals.” [49] A more recently proposed definition, derived from a growing
body of research, reflects a more expansive perspective. Synthesizing multiple strategic
HRM models including the universalistic [31], contingent [36-37, 49] configurational
[18, 49] and contextual [25] perspectives, Martin-Alcazar, Romero-Fernandez and
Sanchez-Gardy [25] define strategic HRM as “the integrated set of practices, policies
and strategies through which organizations manage their human capital that influences
and is influenced by the business strategy, the organizational context and the socio-
economic context.” This latter definition sets the strategic HRM phenomena in a
broader context emphasizing important influential factors beyond the organization.
Lepak & Shaw’s [19] literature review of strategic HRM in North America builds on
the latter definition. They identify several specific distinguishing features of strategic
HRM. First, strategic HRM is a macro-level concept and thus further specify the
concept of organization to mean at a company, business unit or establishment level.
Second, strategic HRM highlights the notion of fit among HRM practices, known as
horizontal alignment, and vertical fit between HRM and other organizational factors,
typically business strategy. Third, strategic HRM focuses on HRM systems, a bundle of
HR practices that are either universally, contingently, or configurationally effective
depending on espoused theoretical perspective. Finally, strategic HRM emphasizes
organizational performance outcomes.
Lengnick-Hall and colleagues’ (2009)[17] also contribute to an increased understanding
of what the strategic HRM domain comprises. In a comprehensive chronological review
of the strategic HRM literature, they identify three chronological stages. Early strategic
HRM literature emphasized a contingency perspective in which fit between human
resource policies and practices and various strategy elements was the focal point.
Consequences of strategic HRM in this stream of research included organizational
34
performance contingent on vertical fit or predicted bundles of HRM practices based on
intended business strategy. Thus this literature focused on describing the phenomena in
terms of bundles of practices and the fit of HRM practices with each other and with
other organizational contexts such as business strategy.
A second line of inquiry focused on strategic HRM as a source of important strategic
contributions. Consequences of strategic HRM in this stream shifted focus from
employee welfare as the key outcome to competitive advantage, human capital, social
capital, organizational capital, intellectual capital and knowledge management as key
outcomes. The focus of this stream of literature was on outcomes of the strategic HRM
phenomena and the notion that the outcomes determined whether the HRM input was
strategic.
More recently, another line of research emphasizes the importance of effective
execution of HR policies and practices and ensuring that the strategic intent is realized.
In this newer stream, divergence between intended and implemented strategic HRM
practices are explored and suggest the possibility that the expected outcomes of a
strategic HRM intervention might depend on what actually is implemented.
2.2 What is e-HRM
Several definitions of e-HRM exist in the academic literature. The two most cited
definitions are provided by Strohmeier [39] [40][41] and Ruel and colleagues [34].
Ruel, Bondarouk and Looise [34] proposed an early popular definition in which e-HRM
was defined as a way of implementing HRM strategies, policies and practices in
organizations through the conscious and directed support of and with the full use of web
technology based channels. Strohmeier [39] expanded this definition to be more specific
about the technological and organizational contexts, defining e-HRM as the application
of information technology for both networking and supporting at least two individual or
collective actors in their shared performing of HR activities. In the remainder of the
paper, we use a hybrid of these definitions in which e-HRM consists of intended and
actual HRM policies, activities, services, and collaborations with individuals and
organizations, which are delivered and enabled using configurations of computer
hardware, software, and electronic networking capability.
3 Research Framework and Methodology
In this study, we use integrative synthesis which is an accepted evidence-based
methodology to summarize the existing research literature [33]. Integrative synthesis
involves the collection and comparison of evidence involving two or more data
collection methods [33] . It investigates patterns across primary research studies,
compensating for single-study weaknesses in research design to improve the internal
and external validity of the various research findings. Integrative synthesis typically
employs predetermined questions and selection criteria. Critical selection criteria
include the relevance and construct validity of indicators obtained by different methods,
all tapping what is presumed to be the same phenomenon. This method often pursues
multiple questions allowing the review to address issues difficult to examine in the
context of a single study. Integrative synthesis is not meta-analysis. It relies on
judgment of the researchers, but around a structured framework and set of questions.
Below we define our research methodology in detail following the procedure described
by Rousseau and colleagues, and Dibbern and colleagues [8, 33]. We begin first with
identifying our predetermined questions and follow with our selection criteria. Our
35
selection criteria involved first specifying key construct search terms to identify relevant
studies. We then specified factors that would insure relevance and construct relevance.
Finally, we categorized each selected study by its theoretical foundations, type of
relationship examined (e.g., type of validity), level of analysis, and empirical approach.
We discuss this methodological process in more detail in the following subsections.
3.1 Integrative synthesis questions
Typical questions framing an integrative synthesis relate to effectiveness of
interventions and cause-effect relationships. The key question framing our integrative
synthesis is: What e-HRM and strategic HRM relationships are present and supported
across studies? In our review of the evidence addressing this question, we examine the
nature of the relationship between these two constructs. What does the evidence suggest
concerning the causal order of the relationship? Does the evidence suggest e-HRM is
the cause or consequence of strategic HRM outcomes [40]? Does the evidence support a
deterministic view in which technology triggers organizational change or does the
evidence suggest a more influential role for social and organizational actors [12, 28]?
We also note how strategic HRM is conceptualized. Is it based on early stage theories,
on strategic outcomes of strategic HRM, or later concerns with the juxtaposition of
intended versus realized strategic outcomes? Finally, our synthesis addresses the
feasibility of applying the findings from this literature. We therefore also examine what
resources or contexts are important for the e-HRM and strategic HRM relationship to
exist. What do stakeholders (HR managers, managers, employees, vendors,
shareholders) experience and what issues are important to them?
3.2 Sample Selection
To identify an appropriate sample of published research evidence to include in our
integrative synthesis, we started by searching for all published articles related to e-HRM
in the past ten years (1999-2009). We searched in the primary business and psychology
indexed databases, utilizing ABI Inform/Proquest, Business Source Premier, and
PsycArticles. We developed an extensive list of search terms used in the field. Table 1
presents the search terms used and the number of articles identified using each of the
search terms. Articles were coded based on the search term with which they were first
located. Several of the articles were matched with multiple search terms but we did not
code the additional matching search terms. Ten additional articles were identified by
scanning reference lists of recently published research [e.g., Strohmeier, 2009]. In total,
we identified 77 published research articles related to e-HRM.
In the next step, we applied several criteria to identify the set of articles most relevant to
our research questions. We decided to retain only those articles that (1) were in peer
reviewed publications, (2) included quantitative or qualitative data (no purely
conceptual studies), (3) fit one or more definitions of e-HRM as reviewed above, (4)
addressed the use of e-HRM in an organizational setting rather than taking a
pedagogical approach of teaching students about e-HRM, and (5) were published in the
same year or after Strohmeier’s [39] recent literature review (2007 – 2009). At this
stage, we did not consider the extent to which the articles addressed strategic HRM.
This screening process resulted in 20 articles that met all criteria. Our review of these
articles is organized first by stated or implicit strategic HR perspective, thus addressing
our key question. In the case of articles with an implicit strategic HR perspective, we
used our judgement based on a close reading of the article to categorize any underlying
presumed relationship. In most cases, although not the main focus of the paper, a
36
presumed relationship between e-HRM and strategic HRM is a stated justification for or
implication of the research.
Then we discuss evidence by theoretical foundation, type of statistical relationship,
level of analysis, and empirical approach. Articles included in the review are
categorized in Table 2. Note that the column totals within a category (e.g., strategic HR
perspective) do not necessarily add to 20 because some of the articles were categorized
into multiple categories.
3.3 Strategic HR perspective
We organized our sample of e-HRM published studies by Lengnick-Hall et al.’s [17]
chronological stages of strategic HRM research. Research in e-HRM that takes the
contingency perspective examines a potential fit between different organizational
characteristics and the use of e-HRM, either overall adoption or the use of different
types or elements of e-HRM. Research founded in the strategic contributions stage
examines strategic outcomes and thus the specific strategic outcomes or consequences
associated with e-HRM. Finally, research in the third stage examines consistency or
divergence between the intended and implemented HRM practices, and how the
intended or presumed strategic impact could be limited by implementation problems.
Much of the prior research in individual-level adoption of e-HRM technology is at this
third stage. We also identified studies that simply focused on contextual factors that
might affect whether intended outcomes are actually realized.
Search Term Number of Articles Identified
B2E and HRM 1
e-HR 6
e-HRM 6
ERP and HRM 2
HRIS 31
HRM and Internet 4
Self-service 7
Virtual HRM 1
Web-based HRM 11
Table 1: Articles Identified Using Specified Search Terms
3.4 Theoretical foundation
Since our key questions involve investigating the types of relationships evidenced
between e-HRM and strategic HR we categorized each study based on the theory used
to develop the research model/hypotheses. Relevant theoretical foundations are found in
the strategy, information sciences and strategic HRM literatures. Key theories in the
37
strategy research that are relevant to the e-HRM and strategic HR relationship include
contingency theory, the resource-based view, and strategic evolution, value chain
theories, and institutional theory. Theories from information science include
technological determinism [28, 40], structuration theory [12], innovation diffusion
theories [32], technology acceptance theories [6, 45], and information processing
theory. Theories applied to strategic HRM include configurational and universalistic
theories and behavioral theory [7, 15, 18, 31, 38, 47]. We looked to see if the research
was based on a single theory or multiple theories, and also included an unspecified
“other” category in our framework to cover other theories or unexpected findings,
which provoked alternative theoretical explanations.
3.5 Type of relationship
For research to effectively inform evidence based management, we must be confident in
the conclusions drawn from the study. There are four types of relationships between key
constructs that research must address in order to meet satisfactory empirical standards.
These four relationships are typically referred to as conclusion validity, internal validity,
construct validity, and external validity. Conclusion validity establishes whether there is
a relationship between two constructs. Internal validity establishes whether this
relationship is causal and if so the direction of causality. Construct validity investigates
whether measurement of the key constructs is sufficient to adequately assess the
relationship. Finally external validity establishes how generalizable the relationship is
and whether there are contextual contingencies that might affect the observed
relationship. We classified our sample of studies by the type of relationship that
received the most attention.
38
Study Strategic HR Perspective Theory? Reference Theory Relationship Level of
Empirical Approach
Explicit Strategy Information Science Organizational Science Analysis
Cross sectional
Experimental
Structuration
Determinism
Perspective
Correlational
Contingency
Intended vs
Contingency
Case study-
Longitudinal
Information
Processing
descriptive
Behavioral
Contextual
Outcomes
Exchange
One main
Diffusion
Realized
Strategic
Multiple
Theory
Theory
Causal
Macro
theory
Other
Other
Other
Micro
None
TAM
RBV
Teo, Lim, and Fedric x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x
Ruel, Bondarouk, and Van der Velde x
x x x x x x x x x
Hussain, Wallace and Cornelius x
Olivas-Lujan, Ramirez, & Zapata-Cantu x x x x x
Allen, Mahto, and Otondo x x x x x x x
x x x x x x
Dineen, Ling, Ash, and DelVecchio
Tansley and Newell (JMP) x x x x x
Tansley and Newell (ML) x x x x x
x x x x x
Alleyne, Kakabadse and Kakabadse
Panayotopoulou, Vakola, and Galanaki x x x x x
Voermans and Van Veldhoven x x x x x x x x x
TOTAL 2007 4 4 5 6 2 2 7 2 3 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 1 4 4 4 4 7 5 0 4 2
Haines and Lafleur x x x x x x x x x x
Lukaszewski, Stone, and Stone-Romero x x x x x x
Ngai, Law, Chan and Wat x x x x x x x
TOTAL 2008 2 1 2 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 2 1 2 0 0 1
Dineen and Noe x x x x x x
Payne, Horner, Boswell, Schroeder, and
x x x x x x
Stine-Cheyne
Strohmeier and Kabst x x x x x x x x
Marler, Fisher, and Ke x x x x x x x x x
Farndale, Paauwe, and Hoeksema x x x x x x x x
Bondarouk, Ruël, and van der Heijden x x x x x x x x
TOTAL 2009 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 1 1 3 2 4 2 4 2 2 2 1
OVERALL TOTALS 8 7 9 9 5 4 12 4 3 1 0 1 1 6 2 1 0 2 2 7 8 9 8 12 9 2 6 4
Table 2: Descriptive Analyses of Empirical Studies
39
3.6 Levels of analysis and empirical approach
Next we chose to examine the key relationships by the levels of analysis addressed in
the research and then by empirical approach used to verify the type of theorized
relationship within level. The level of analysis used in any study should be clearly
linked to the theoretical foundation.
To adequately address the question of strategic HR, constructs of interest should be at
the firm, division, or some other unit at the organizational level. Research in e-HRM
may also be at the group, team or department level, examining group-level social
constructs or perhaps differences between groups in implementation of new technology.
Then we evaluated the empirical approach used to verify the expected relationships
within the specified level of analysis. Cross sectional samples and variance-based
statistical analyses help establish conclusion validity, construct validity and external
validity. Longitudinal samples, experimental designs and process-based statistical
analyses better establish causal relationships or internal validity.
4 Literature Review and Analysis
The first finding of note is that less than half of the empirical research, eight out of
twenty studies, conducted on e-HRM over the past several years has explicitly
addressed strategic relationships or outcomes. The majority presumed some kind of
strategic relationship. Based on Lengnick-Hall et al.’s [17] framework, we identified
seven articles adopt a contingency perspective and nine that evaluated strategic
outcomes associated with e-HRM. In some cases, we counted a study as both a
contingency perspective and a strategic outcome when the strategic outcome
represented HRM strategic effectiveness. Nine articles examined consistency or
divergence between the intended and implemented HRM practices, and five focused on
contextual factors that might affect whether intended outcomes are actually realized
(note that some of the articles incorporated more than one perspective). In the last two
categories, strategic outcomes were often implied or offered as a reason for conducting
the research but were not directly examined in the study. We continued to assess all of
the studies with our complete research framework to determine how the findings of
these studies might inform practitioners and future research on the relationship between
e-HRM and strategic HRM.
Six studies in our sample explicitly examined the relationship between perceptions of e-
HRM effectiveness and perceptions of the HR function’s strategic effectiveness and
strategic business partner role. These studies presented a strategic contingent theoretical
perspective with the underlying assumption that HR managers that provide strategic
support to line managers also support the organization in reaching strategic objectives.
E-HRM in these studies enables the HR function to become more strategically effective
as described by Huselid, Jackson and Schuler [15].
Of the nine studies in the sample categorized as dealing with strategic outcomes, none
provided explicit evidence concerning other strategic outcomes (e.g. improved human
capital, competitive advantage, business performance) beyond improving perceptions of
HRM’s strategic effectiveness. Less than half of the studies (n = 8) were conducted at
the organizational level of analysis.
40
4.1 E-HRM and strategic HR: contingency perspective
To date, the literature on e-HRM and strategic HRM assumes a contingent theoretical
perspective in which the perceptual relationship between these two constructs is most
frequently studied. Six of the studies we reviewed provide evidence of a significant
relationship between individual perceptions (e.g. employees, HR managers, line
managers, senior executives) of e-HRM effectiveness and perceptions of the strategic
effectiveness of the HRM function. The second most common approach treats e-HRM
as the cause of business process improvements that are assumed to be related to more
effective, potentially more strategic, HRM practices.
Ruel, Bondarouk and Van der Velde [35] conduct a field study to determine whether an
employee’s assessment of various characteristics of e-HRM is related to perceptions of
HRM’s strategic effectiveness. Their study integrated Huselid and colleagues’ measure
of strategic HRM effectiveness within a technology acceptance model theoretical
framework[5]. They surveyed 100 employees of the Dutch Ministry of Internal Affairs
and found that employee participation in the development stage of e-HRM
implementation predicted employee perceptions of e-HRM quality. They also found that
e-HRM quality predicted employee perceptions of strategic HRM effectiveness. Similar
to Ruel and colleagues, Voermans and van Veldhoven’s [46] study of 356 Dutch
employees of Philips, a Dutch multinational, provided additional evidence of a link
between attitude toward e-HRM and perceptions of the quality of HRM as a strategic
business partner.
Haines and Lafleur [13] surveyed Canadian HR managers across 210 firms to assess the
relationship between the degree IT supported HR activities and HR managers’
perceptions of HR’s technical and strategic effectiveness. They found a positive
relationship between the degree of IT support of HR activities and HR manager’s
perceptions of the organization’s HR strategic effectiveness, and with the quality of
HR’s strategic and change agent roles as assessed using Ulrich and Brockbank’s
measure of strategic business partner and change agent role performance [44].
Hussain, Wallace, and Cornelius [16] found that slightly less than 50% of a random
sample of companies in the UK use HRIS or other software exclusively in support of
strategic HR usage tasks1. They claim their findings reveal wholesale adoption of HRIS
in support of a full strategic partnering role, regardless of company size. Their results
show, however, that while surveyed HR professionals believed that the usage of HRIS
for strategic decision-making led to enhanced professional standing within and outside
the organization, semi-structured follow-up interviews with organizational executives
revealed a less positive assessment. Senior executives thought that HRIS use had not
enhanced HR's professional standing within the organization, contrary to the views of
HR managers' themselves.
Two very recent studies, however, suggest that expectations that e-HRM enables or
supports HR managers in taking on more strategic business partner tasks are not
founded [4, 11]. In a qualitative case study of an e-HRM module deployed in the Dutch
Ministry of the Interior, Bondarouk and colleagues [4] found that line managers and
employees did not appear to link e-HRM functionality with HRM strategic
effectiveness. E-HRM made administrative/data management more accessible but it did
not improve the line managers’ or employees’ perception of HRM being more
1
Although they did not measure e-HRM specifically, we assume at least some of the HRIS fits the
41
strategically effective. Ironically, the semi-structured interviews of managers and
employees suggested HR managers continued to misdirect their efforts on non-
employee value-added activities such as cost reduction and re-organization. Farndale
Paauwe and Hoeksema [11] also found the deployment of an electronically enabled HR
shared service centre resulted in less use of local HR generalists by line managers,
contrary to the authors’ expectation that the technology would free HR employees to
spend more time strategically supporting line managers.
4.2 E-HRM and strategic outcomes
As described above, some studies examined perceptions of HR managers’ strategic
effectiveness or strategic business partner roles. However, none of the studies looked at
whether e-HRM was related to other strategic outcomes such as competitive advantage,
organizational performance, or improved HR outcomes such as increased human
capital, reduced turnover or increased organizational commitment or job satisfaction.
Instead the existing studies focus on factors one step removed from such strategic
outcomes.
Ruel et al.’s [35] theoretical frame had an underlying deterministic presumption, which
was that e-HRM would facilitate the strategic transformation of the HR function.
However, they also examined whether the degree to which managers were involved in
adapting the e-HRM at implementation predicted managerial perceptions of HRM’s
strategic effectiveness. Although they did not test whether perceptions of the quality of
the e-HRM acted as a mediator, their study design implies that perceptions of e-HRM
quality are an important outcome of potential strategic significance. Thus they treat e-
HRM effectiveness, the mediating construct, as both an effect and a cause. It is an effect
of managerial involvement in implementing e-HRM and it is a cause of managerial
perceptions of HRM’s strategic effectiveness.
Alleyn, Kakabadse and Kakabadse [2] take a novel approach by applying the customer
service satisfaction profit chain [14] model combined with the concept of met
expectations to argue that satisfaction with e-HRM technology will result in line
manager satisfaction (line managers are HR’s internal customers). The implication here
is that by developing satisfied line managers who are HR customers, e-HRM is thus
related to eventual greater productivity and retention of line managers. Their interviews
suggest that when line managers’ expectations of the e-HRM are met they express
satisfaction with e-HRM and their satisfaction with the HR function increases. On the
other hand, unmet expectations resulted in dissatisfaction with both the e-HRM and the
HRM function overall.
4.3 E-HRM as the strategic outcome: an alternate causal ordering
In a review of early e-HRM consequences, Strohmeier [40] calls into question the
appropriateness of assuming a deterministic view of e-HRM in which e-HRM
determines organizational outcomes. He argues the causal ordering could be reversed
and thus suggests that e-HRM itself is the result of strategic decision-making. With this
perspective, researchers are focused on understanding what social agents and contextual
factors determine how a technology is developed and designed and whether and how it
is deployed. Thus e-HRM is a strategic outcome of strategic HR and not the other way
around.
Haines and Lafleur [13] also argue that outcomes of IT do not deterministically change
an organization but depend on the extent to which IT is viewed as useful and thus
42
adopted and adapted to improve organizational information processing capability.
Hussain, Wallace and Cornelius [16] argue that strategic pressure on the HR function
within organizations is implicated in HR managers’ use of HRIS to improve their
strategic decision making capability and professional image within the organization.
This theoretical perspective presumes e-HRM is the outcome of strategic choices on the
part of HR managers with the intended effect of improving their strategic capability and
image.
Two exploratory studies, one of firms in Hong Kong [26] and one of firms located in
Greece [29] examined reasons why firms used e-HRM. Both studies found the key
reason related to improving communication between HR and employees and between
managers and employees. Strategic outcomes were of secondary importance and
generally related to achieving reduced HR costs. Teo, Lim and Fedric (2007) examined
e-HRM adoption as an outcome among firms located in Singapore. They looked to see
if innovation, organizational, and environmental characteristics of the firm would
impact adoption of e-HRM systems. Findings suggested that the organizational
characteristics were related to adoption while the more strategic predictors such as
competitive pressure were not.
In a very recent study Farndale, et al. [11] explored HR shared service centres (SSC)
used by 15 firms located in the Netherlands. They argue that a SSC is a natural
progression of e-HRM technologies because SSC are characterized by electronic
communications through an internet-based infrastructure that is combined with a call
center, enabling the consolidation of corporate activities into fewer locations while
spreading information to a broader audience. As Farndale and colleagues note, “a
shared-service centre is not an end in itself; it is a means to transforming the whole
function of HR to make it more strategic….Ultimately, the decision to create an SSC is
largely a factor of corporate strategy. The decision to bring HRM administrative tasks in
a single location to provide services across business divisions or locations indicates a
certain desire on behalf of the organization to consolidate its field of operations.[11]”
Thus the deployment of e-HRM represents an outcome of a corporate strategy to
consolidate HRM administrative tasks with the primary objective to improve customer
(e.g., manager and employee) service at reduced costs.
4.4 E-HRM and strategic HRM: Intended vs. realized implementation
In this section, we examine the extent to which strategic intent of e-HRM technology
was effectively implemented. As noted by Tansley and Newell, the strategic intent for
e-HRM may be present, but there are many complications in system development and
implementation that may stand in the way of effective use [44, 45]. Nine of the papers
directly shed light on this part of our question. The two case studies by Tansley and
Newell provided a detailed context for understanding, for those who have never been
involved in implementation of e-HRM, how complex the process really is. They studied
two different development teams to examine factors that can help these teams realize
the intended goals of e-HRM. They found that leadership competencies were very
important, such as the ability to bring together individuals from different role
perspectives (e.g., IT and HR). Project leaders in this context must be able to identify,
manage and dispel political issues that have potential to derail the project.
The experimental and quasi-experimental papers included in our review [1, 9-10, 21]
offer a different perspective on the intended/realized question. These papers sought to
examine the effectiveness of specific aspects of the e-HRM systems (recruiting,
performance appraisal, and broader HR data storage) in a controlled environment to see
43
if they had the intended effects before implementing the systems more broadly. Three
papers examined the use of e-HRM to improve recruiting outcomes [1, 9-10]. Allen,
Mahto and Otondo conducted an experimental study looking at how the amount of
information presented to potential job applicants would affect attitudes toward the
organization and subsequently, intentions to apply for a position. Dineen and colleagues
[9-10] also examined information provided to potential job applicants, focusing on
provision of customized information from a person-organization and person-job fit
perspective. All of these studies found that appropriate, active use of technology could
be used to enhance applicant interest in a job or organization, or even enhance the
quality of the overall applicant pool by providing customized data about person-
organization and person-job fit. Another paper examined implementation of an online
performance appraisal (PA) system (Payne, et al.)[30]. This was a quasi-experimental
study in a large organization that looked at perceptions of a new online performance
appraisal system compared to a more traditional system. This study found that with the
online system employees perceived managers to be held more accountable and
employees reported participating more in the process, two indicators of a more effective
PA system. However, Payne, et al. also found employees were equally satisfied with the
paper and pencil and online systems, and actually reported that the online appraisals
were of lower quality than the paper and pencil ones received the previous year. This
was certainly not an intended goal of the organization.
Lukaszewski et al. [21] examined privacy concerns with e-HRM data storage. They
found that employees had greater concerns about the privacy of data stored in an e-
HRM system when data sensitivity was higher (e.g., with medical data). This is another
unintended outcome that needs to be examined further.
4.5 e-HRM and strategic HRM : Contextual factors
Another common theme in many of these studies is that there are important contextual
factors upon which e-HRM acceptance and use by stakeholders depends. Although
these contextual factors were often not the specific focus of the study, several
researchers concluded that e-HRM acceptance by stakeholders depends on degree of
involvement in design and implementation of e-HRM [2, 35]; the perceived usefulness
of the e-HRM technology [23-24, 46]; whether expectations were met [2]; degree of
managerial coercion [23] on training/ perceived organizational resources [24, 46] and
finally to perceptions of privacy or data security related to acceptance of e-HRM, with
inconsistent results [21, 30]. We discuss these findings because e-HRM certainly cannot
achieve strategic outcomes if it is not accepted and used by stakeholders. In addition to
factors that might affect e-HRM acceptance, several studies identified contexts or
resources important for e-HRM to be associated with strategic outcomes. These
contextual factors included organizational size [16, 41] union presence [13];
environmental infrastructure [27] and national culture [27].
In the current literature, larger organizations are more likely to adopt e-HRM systems
and tend to have more positive outcomes [43]. From the motivational perspective,
Hussain et al. [16] examined whether organizational size was an important factor in the
degree to which HR managers felt compelled to invest in HRIS to improve their
strategic capabilities. They found that size was not a significant differentiator.
One additional contextual factor studied in seven of the papers is the nationality of the
firm adopting the e-HRM technology. Nationality was held constant in six of the studies
(Singapore, Hong Kong, Greece, Mexico, the Netherlands) and was used as an
explanatory factor in one study [41]. The studies using a single-country sample
44
appeared to do so for convenience of sampling, as no theoretical arguments were
offered for constraining the sample in that way. It is important to note that even within
these single-country studies, a large percentage of MNCs were included. To the extent
that adoption and use of e-HRM occurs at the firm level, these studies may in fact
represent a broader, more global sample.
In contrast, others (e.g., [41]) have argued that national context will directly affect
adoption and use of e-HRM due to national differences in human resource management
laws, education systems, industrial relation systems, legislation addressing storage and
use of electronic data, and level of economic development. Strohmeier and Kabst [41]
found rather unexpected results related to national context, as former Eastern European
countries in their sample were actually more likely to have adopted e-HRM than
Western European countries.
Olivas-Lujan and colleagues’ [27] case studies of 4 large Mexican multinationals
examined the extent to which key contextual variables, competitive environment,
external telecommunications infrastructure and national cultural norms affected how e-
HRM was used within organizations. For example, deficient telecommunications
infrastructure in more remote regions of Mexico constrained one company’s use of e-
learning to enhance its employees’ customer service skills and behaviours. Their
qualitative descriptions suggest these factors might affect how e-HRM was deployed
but the degree, significance, and nature of these relationships were not addressed.
Tansley and Newell [42-43] took a third approach to examining the impact of
nationality on implementation of e-HRM. In their case studies, they noted that staffing
implementation teams with employees from different countries increases the challenges
inherent in accomplishing such an effort. Development and implementation of e-HRM
is challenging enough with a cross-disciplinary team (represented by IT and HR
functions) and the national diversity added another layer of complexity to the projects.
Another contextual factor that may be related to the strategic impact of e-HRM is the
breadth of the technology and number of HR processes affected. The e-HRM
technology reviewed in this paper ranged from single function systems for recruiting
and performance appraisal to broad HRIS packages2. It seems reasonable to expect that
the broader e-HRM systems have the potential for greater strategic impact. However,
they may also come with more risks and technology adoption concerns.
4.6 Levels of analysis and empirical approach
Only eight of the studies examined macro-level questions about e-HRM and strategic
HRM. The majority of the studies were focused on individual level reactions to such
systems or team leader behaviors related to effective e-HRM projects [42-43]. The
underlying assumption of these papers, therefore, is that there is a relationship between
e-HRM and strategic HR and that individual level acceptance of e-HRM is an important
issue to study. These e-HRM studies are more suited for understanding the conditions in
which e-HRM will be accepted and effectively used by individual stakeholders. They
cannot address the primary question of what relationship exists between e-HRM and
strategic HRM.
2
We intentionally excluded e-learning from this analysis, as that literature focuses more on individual
learning than on the strategic benefit, data management, and user acceptance issues in the e-HRM
literature.
45
In terms of research design, six of the studies used the case study approach to examine
issues around e-HRM in detail within one or just a few organizational groups. Of the
remaining empirical studies, nine were cross-sectional in nature, two were longitudinal,
and four were experimental. This variation in research design is generally a positive
feature of this set of papers, as each approach has strengths in answering specific kinds
of questions. At early stages of an area of inquiry, it can be very useful to play different
approaches off one another, even alternating approaches to better understand the
phenomena being studied. Unfortunately, we did not see this cross-fertilization of
research approaches, with research groups pursuing a particular approach to the
exclusion of others.
We also examined factors related to construct validity, internal validity, and external
validity in each of the studies to help evaluate the existing evidence regarding e-HRM
and strategic HRM [34]. Construct validity varied widely across the studies. Some
studies used well established measures for their constructs and performed structural
equation modelling to demonstrate good fit of their measurement models, giving us
more confidence in their measures [e.g., 1,9,10,22,24]. Others were forced to rely on
measures developed by others when using an industry-wide survey [43]. While we
applaud the use of large samples across industries, it is critical to ensure that core
concepts such as presence of an HR strategy are adequately measured. We also question
the construct validity of some measures of e-HRM implementation [e.g., 43] including
the binary measures.
Naturally, external validity was limited in the case study and experimental papers. One
factor that appears to limit external validity for all the papers is differences in e-HRM
systems that are not always specified. Having a clear system for describing and
categorizing key features of e-HRM systems would likely help with generalizing results
across situations and studies.
Finally, no studies were able to establish internal validity and therefore causal ordering
at the macro-level of analysis. Of the 20 studies examined only 8 were at a macro-level
of analysis and of these, only 5 provided empirical evidence for a correlational
relationship between e-HRM and strategic HRM and none provided appropriate
empirical support for establishing causal ordering.
5 Discussion and Conclusions
Our evidence-based examination of e-HRM and strategic HRM relationships across 20
studies in peer-reviewed literature over the last 2 years reveals several interesting
themes for practitioners to evaluate gaps in the literature that should provoke interesting
avenues for scholars to explore in future research.
5.1 Key themes
The majority of empirical studies concerning e-HRM and strategic HR have examined
the relationship between perceived characteristics of e-HRM and perceived strategic
effectiveness of the HR function or HR managers. The evidence consistently suggests
there is a significant, positive relationship. All these studies depict a relationship in
which e-HRM perceptions predict strategic HR effectiveness. Thus positive (negative)
perceptions of e-HRM are associated with positive (negative) perceptions of HR’s
strategic effectiveness. Although these cross sectional and case study analyses assume
the above causal ordering, there is no evidence to counter the reverse relationship. That
is, it is also possible that positive (negative) perceptions of strategic HR effectiveness
46
predict positive (negative) perceptions of e-HRM effectiveness. Teasing out the causal
order would make a very useful and interesting contribution to this literature.
A second underlying theme in this literature is that HR managers expect e-HRM
deployments to improve their strategic capabilities and enable them to become strategic
business partners. Results on whether these expectations are actually realized are mixed.
Early exploratory studies suggest such a strategic outcome is realized while more recent
studies call this expectation into question.
A third theme is that none of the studies looked at whether e-HRM was related to other
strategic outcomes such as competitive advantage, organizational performance, or
improved HR outcomes such as increased human capital, reduced turnover or increased
organizational commitment or job satisfaction. Instead the existing studies focus on
factors one step (or more) removed from such strategic outcomes.
Finally, a fourth common theme in many of these studies is that there are important
contextual factors upon which e-HRM acceptance and use by stakeholders depends. In
addition to factors that might affect e-HRM acceptance by stakeholders, several studies
identified contexts or resources important for e-HRM to be associated with strategic
outcomes.
5.2 Gaps and future research
Our examination of the current published empirical research reveals at least four gaps in
this research stream. The first noticeable gap in the literature is the lack of attention to
strategic outcomes. We found there was generally an assumption of the strategic value
of the e-HRM system, but few studies directly examined the assumption. In our opinion,
this relationship is not well enough established to consider it a well-founded
assumption. Thus, future research designs should consider where possible the
measurement of strategic outcomes such as better knowledge management, more
productive human capital, better organizational performance and so on.
The second gap we identified in the literature is a lack of longitudinal research. Only
two of the 20 studies used a longitudinal design. This makes it difficult to disentangle
issues of causality in the relationship between e-HRM and SHRM, as the direction of
the relationship depends on the theoretical perspective underlying the study design
rather than testing the relationship empirically. Interestingly, as more and more
organizations adopt e-HRM and complete their implementation, we may be losing the
opportunity to directly study the causal relationship between e-HRM adoption and
SHRM. The time may be coming in which we need to reframe the research agenda
around different characteristics of e-HRM rather than simply existence of e-HRM.
Another gap was the somewhat limited application of theory to the research questions.
We considered only four of the studies we reviewed to be lacking theory altogether, but
we need a stronger theoretical foundation for e-HRM research in general to help make
sense of the literature, strengthen the research conducted, and facilitate effective
accumulation of knowledge. The most commonly used theory across this group of
studies was the technology acceptance model (TAM), a well-used theory that helps
explain adoption of new technology. However, TAM is only tangentially related to
strategic issues.
The last gap we see is the need for more empirical, field-based research on e-HRM and
SHRM. Single organization-based case studies and experimental research accounted for
nearly half (10 of 20) studies we reviewed. These approaches have helped provide a
47
good foundation for future researchers to design more empirical, field-based research to
test the theories and models that have been developed through case studies and
experiments. This will provide a better evidence for practitioners to know what really
works in practice.
5.3 Conclusion
In conclusion, this evidence-based review of the intersection between e-HRM and
strategic HRM has led us to four primary findings in the literature: 1) implementation of
e-HRM is associated with perceptions of strategic effectiveness of HR (both positive
and negative), 2) there is very limited empirical evidence supporting the expectation
that e-HRM s related to other strategic outcomes, 3) there is considerable evidence
indicating a contextual factors are likely to be key moderators of the relationship
between e-HRM and strategic HRM outcomes, and finally, 4) there are considerable
gaps in the cumulative literature that need to be addressed in order to provide strong
guidance to practitioners. There are many opportunities to continue and refine this
important area of research, and we believe this review provides a foundation and strong
motivation for moving ahead.
References
[1] Allen, D., Mahto, R.&Otondo, R. (2007). Web-Based Recruitment: Effects of
Information, Organizational Brand, and Attitudes toward a Web Site on Applicant
Attraction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6). 1696-1708.
[2] Alleyn, C., Kakbadse, A.&Kakbadse, N. (2007). Using the Hr Intranet: An
Exploratory Analysis of Its Impact on Managerial Satisfaction with the Hr
Function. Personnel Review, 36(2). 295-310.
[3] Becker, B.Huselid, M.A. (1998). High Performance Work Systems and Firm
Performance. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 16. 53-
101.
[4] Bondarouk, T., Ruël, H.&van der Heijden, B. (2009). E-Hrm Effectiveness in a
Public Sector Organization: A Multi-Stakeholder Perspective. International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(3). 578-590.
[5] Davis, F.D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use and User
Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3). 319-340.
[6] Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P.&Warshaw, P.R. (1989). User Acceptance of Computer
Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models. Management Science,
35(8). 982-1003.
[7] Delery, J.E. (1998). Issues of Fit in Strategic Human Resource Management:
Implications for Research. Human Resource Management Review, 8(3). 289-309.
[8] Dibbern, J., et al. (2004). Information Systems Outsourcing: A Survey and
Analysis of the Literature. ACM SIGMIS Database, 35(4). 6-102.
[9] Dineen, B., et al. (2007). Aesthetic Properties and Message Customization:
Navigating the Dark Side of Web Recruitment. Journal of Applied Psychology,
92(2). 356-372.
48
[10] Dineen, B.Noe, R. (2009). Effects of Customization on Application Decisions and
Applicant Pool Characteristics in a Web-Based Recruitment Context. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 94(1). 224-234.
[11] Farndale, E., Paauwe, J.&Hoeksema, L. (2009). In-Sourcing Hr: Shared Service
Centres in the Netherlands. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 20(3). 544-561.
[12] Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
[13] Haines, V.Y.Lafleur, G. (2008). Information Technology Usage and Human
Resource Roles and Effectiveness. Human Resource Management, 47(3). 525-
540.
[14] Heskitt, J.Schlesinger, L.A. (1994). Building Service, Driving Profits. Harvard
Business Review, (March-April).
[15] Huselid, M.A., Jackson, S.E.&Schuler, R.S. (1997). Technical and Strategic
Human Resource Management Effectiveness as Determinants of Firm
Performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 40(1). 171-188.
[16] Hussain, Z., Wallace, J.&Cornelius, N.E. (2007). The Use and Impact of Human
Resource Information Systems on Human Resource Management Professionals.
Information and Management, 44. 74-89.
[17] Lengnick-Hall, M.L., et al. (2009). Strategic Human Resource Management: The
Evolution of the Field. Human Resource Management Review, 19(2). 64-85.
[18] Lepak, D.A., et al. (2006). A Conceptual Review of Human Resource
Management Systems in Strategic Human Resource Management Research.
Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 25. 217-271.
[19] Lepak, D.P.Shaw, J. (2008). Strategic Hrm in North America:Looking to the
Future. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(8).
[20] Lepak, D.P.Snell, S.A. (1998). Virtual Hr: Strategic Human Resource
Management in the 21st Century. Human Resource Management Review, 8(3).
215-234.
[21] Lukaszewski, K., Stone, D.&Stone-Romero, E.F. (2008). The Effects of the
Ability to Choose the Type of Human Resources System on Perceptions of
Invasion of Privacy and System Satisfaction. Journal of Business and Psychology,
23(3/4). 73.
[22] Marler, J.H. (2009). Making Human Resources Strategic by Going to Te Net:
Reality or Myth? The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
20(3). 515.
[23] Marler, J.H., Fisher, S.&Ke, W. (2009). Employee Self-Service Technology
Acceptance: A Comparison of Pre-Implementation and Post-Implementation
Relationships. Personnel Psychology, 62(2). 327-341.
[24] Marler, J.H., Liang, X.&Dulebohn, J.H. (2006). The Effect of Technology
Training on Technology Acceptance. Journal of Management, 32. 721-742.
[25] Martin-Alcazar, F., Romero-Fernandez, P.M.&Gardey, G.S. (2005). Strategic
Human Resource Management:Integrating the Universalistic, Contingent,
49
Configurational and Contextual Perspectives. International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 15(5). 633-659.
[26] Ngai, E., et al. (2008). Importance of the Internet to Human Resource
Practitioners in Hong Kong. Personnel Review, 37(1). 66-84.
[27] Olivas-Lujan, M.R., Ramirez, J.&Zapata-Cantu, L. (2007). E-Hrm in Mexico:
Adapting Innovations for Global Competitiveness. International Journal of
Manpower, 28(5). 418-434.
[28] Orlikowski, W.J. (1991). The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of
Technology in Organizations. Organization Science, 3(4). 398-427.
[29] Panayotopoulou, L., Vakola, M.&Galanaki, E. (2007). E-Hr Adoption and the
Role of Hrm:Evidence from Greece. Personnel Review, 36(2). 277-294.
[30] Payne, S., et al. (2009). Comparison of Online and Traditional Performance
Appraisal Systems. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24(6). 526.
[31] Pfeffer, J.Veiga, J. (1999). Putting People First for Organizational Success.
Academy of Management Executive, 13(2). 37-48.
[32] Rogers, E.M. (1983). Diffusion of Innovations. Third ed. New York: Free Press.
[33] Rousseau, D.M., Manning, J.&Denyer, D., Evidence in Management and
Organization Science, in The Academy of Management Annals, J.P. Walsh and
A.P. Brief, Editors. 2008, Taylor & Francis Inc.: Philadelphia. p. 475-515.
[34] Ruël, H.J.M., Bondarouk, T.V.&Looise, J.K. (2004). E-Hrm: Innovation or
Irritation. Explorative Empirical Study in Five Large Companies on Web-Based
Hrm. Management Revue, 15(3). 364-380.
[35] Ruël, H.J.M., Bondarouk, T.V.&Van der Velde, M. (2007). The Contribution of
E-Hrm to Hrm Effectiveness. Human Relations, 29(3). 280-291.
[36] Schuler, R.S. (1992). Strategic Human Resources Management: Linking the
People with the Strategic Needs of the Business. Organizational Dynamics, 21(1).
18-32.
[37] Schuler, R.S.Jackson, S.E. (1987). Organizational Strategy and Organization
Level as Determinants of Human Resource Management Practices. Human
Resource Planning, 10(3).
[38] Snell, S., Shadur, M.A.&Wright, P.M., Human Resources Strategy: The Era of
Our Ways, in The Blackwell Handbook of Strategic Management, M.A. Hitt, R.E.
Freeman, and J.S. Harrison, Editors. 2001, Blackwell Publishers Ltd.: Oxford. p.
627-649.
[39] Strohmeier, S. (2007). Research in E-Hrm: Review and Implications. Human
Resource Management Review, 17(1). 19-37.
[40] Strohmeier, S. (2009). Concepts of E-Hrm Consequences: A Categorisation,
Review and Suggestion. International Journal of Human Resource Management,
20(3). 528-543.
[41] Strohmeier, S.Kabst, R. (2009). Organizational Adoption of E-Hrm in Europe: An
Empirical Explanation of Major Adoption Factors. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 24(6). 482.
50
[42] Tansley, C.Newell, S. (2007). A Knowledge-Based View of Agenda-Formation in
the Development of Human Resource Information Systems. Management
Learning, 38(1). 95.
[43] Tansley, C.Newell, S. (2007). Project Social Capital, Leadership and Trust: A
Study of Human Resource Information Systems Development. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 22(4). 350.
[44] Ulrich, D.Brockbank, W. (2005). Hr: The Value Proposition. Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.
[45] Venkatesh, V., et al. (2003). User Acceptance of Information Technology:
Toward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly, 27(3). 425-478.
[46] Voermans, M.Veldhoven, M.v. (2007). Attitude Towards E-Hrm: An Empirical
Study at Philips. Personnel Review, 36(6). 887-902.
[47] Wright, P.M. (1998). Introduction: Strategic Human Resource Management
Research in the 21st Century. Human Resource Management Review, 8(3). 187-
191.
[48] Wright, P.M., Dunford, B.B.&Snell, S.A. (2001). Human Resources and the
Resource-Based View of the Firm
Journal of Management, 27. 701-721.
[49] Wright, P.M.McMahan, G.C. (1992). Theoretical Perspectives for Strategic
Human Resource Management. Journal of Management, 18(2). 295-320.
51