Journal of Management

http://jom.sagepub.com

Desegregating HRM: A Review and Synthesis of Micro and Macro Human

Resource Management Research
Patrick M. Wright and Wendy R. Boswell
Journal of Management 2002; 28; 247
DOI: 10.1177/014920630202800302

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/28/3/247

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Southern Management Association

Additional services and information for Journal of Management can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jom.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations (this article cites 120 articles hosted on the

SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):
http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/28/3/247

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at Universidad Pablo de Olavide on April 14, 2008

© 2002 Southern Management Association. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
 Journal of Management 2002 28(3) 247–276

Desegregating HRM: A Review and Synthesis

of Micro and Macro Human Resource
Management Research
Patrick M. Wright∗
Department of Human Resource Studies, New York School of Industrial and Labor Relations,
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853-3901, USA

Wendy R. Boswell
Department of Management, Lowry Mays College & Graduate School of Business,
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-4221, USA

Since the early 1980s the field of HRM has seen the independent evolution of two indepen-
dent subfields (strategic and functional), which we believe is dysfunctional to the field as a
whole. We propose a typology of HRM research based on two dimensions: level of analysis
(individual/group or organization) and number of practices (single or multiple). We use this
framework to review the recent research in each of the four subareas. We argue that while
significant progress has been made within each area, the potential for greater gains exists by
looking across each area. Toward this end we suggest some future research directions based
on a more integrative view of HRM. We believe that both areas can contribute significantly to
each other resulting in a more profound impact on the field of HRM than each can contribute
independently. © 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

Yearly Reviews of Human Resource Management (HRM) appearing in Journal

of Management have consistently attempted to balance the reviewing of micro, tradi-
tional, functional aspects of the field and more macro, or strategic aspects of HRM.
Mahoney and Deckop’s (1986) review began this dichotomization, identifying a number of
trends within the field, such as a move from personnel administration to HRM and a move
from human resource planning to strategy. Three years later, Fisher (1989) further distin-
guished between the macro and micro wings of HRM. She noted the distinction between
the concerns of top HR executives such as tying HR to strategy and dealing with strategic

∗Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-607-255-3429; fax: +1-607-255-1836.

E-mail address: pmw6@cornell.edu (P.M. Wright).

0149-2063/02/$ – see front matter © 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 9 - 2 0 6 3 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 1 2 8 - 9
Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at Universidad Pablo de Olavide on April 14, 2008
© 2002 Southern Management Association. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
248 P.M. Wright, W.R. Boswell / Journal of Management 2002 28(3) 247–276

issues such as mergers and acquisitions, international HRM, and downsizing, and the nuts
and bolts activities of operational HR managers such as selection, training, compensation,
and performance appraisal. Most recently, Ferris, Hochwarter, Buckley, Harrell-Cook and
Frink (1999) explored strategic, international, and political perspectives of HRM.
Wright and McMahan (1992) departed from this balanced approach by focusing solely
on strategic HRM research.
While these reviews have commendably identified some of the major issues surrounding
the various aspects of HRM, they have consistently segregated different aspects of the
field, most notably the macro (strategic) and micro (functional) sides. It is our belief that
while there is much yet to be discovered in each of these areas, the time is ripe to unify
the field. Through examining the linkages between these sub-fields, we attempt to integrate
the previously independent issues and concerns. The purpose of this paper is to provide
a framework for identifying the intersections of macro and micro HRM research and to
explore how those intersections can result in more profound research progress in the field
of HRM.
Toward that end, this paper will first present a typology that delineates the various subareas
within the field of HRM. Using this framework, we will then review some of the major
developments within each of the sub-fields over the past few years. Finally, we will explore
some of the exciting, revealing, and hitherto ignored research questions that come to mind
as we look integratively across the various areas of HRM. Our hope is to promote a more
integrative view of the field of HRM.

Defining the Landscape of HRM

In distinguishing among the various areas of HRM research, the terminology leaves
something to be desired. While “strategic” HRM certainly has become part of the lexicon,
one wonders what term to use for everything else. Would an accurate distinction be between
strategic and non-strategic? Certainly a better classification might aid in understanding the
linkages among the different areas.
The term “strategic” HRM has increased in usage and interest, albeit with little consen-
sus regarding to what, specifically, it refers (Ferris et al., 1999). For example, Chadwick
and Cappelli (1999) noted that authors have used the term “strategic” to refer to research
demonstrating the impact of HRM on a strategic goal such as profitability, to strategic
choices made within firms as they impact on HRM systems, or to exploring the “fit” be-
tween strategies and HRM systems. Because of the ambiguity associated with the word
“strategic,” we will refer to “macro” HRM as a broader, more encompassing term that re-
flects a more organizationally focused examination of HRM. We will use the term “micro”
HRM to refer to the more functionally oriented view of HRM. To understand the various
categories of research that currently exist within the realm of HRM, one must delve more
deeply than this distinction alone. We propose that a useful generic approach for classifying
these streams of research is to examine two relatively independent dimensions.
First and most obviously, is the level of analysis dimension (essentially the macro/micro
distinction). We couch this dimension in the context of variance analysis. Kerlinger (1973)
argued that research design and analysis is all about identifying and accounting for sources

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at Universidad Pablo de Olavide on April 14, 2008

© 2002 Southern Management Association. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
 P.M. Wright, W.R. Boswell / Journal of Management 2002 28(3) 247–276 249

of variance. Our first dimension differentiates the source of variability that researchers seek
to identify and explain.
Traditionally, micro HRM research has explored the impact of HR practices on indi-
viduals. Based in foundations such as industrial/organizational psychology and industrial
engineering, this vein of research largely explores how HR can increase individual pro-
ductivity, quality, or satisfaction. It often entails manipulating relevant HR practices in an
experimental format, and then examining the impact on individuals or assessing individuals
on some characteristic (skills, abilities, attitudes, etc.) and relating the assessments to some
performance measure (productivity, absenteeism, turnover). In all cases, however, the goal
of the research is to identify and account for variance across individuals.
On the other hand, more recent macro HRM research examines the impact of HR practices
using the organization (corporation or business unit) as the level of analysis. Most often this
research assesses variables through asking an informed respondent to provide the relevant
value for his/her organization. This vein of research tends to focus on the variance in rele-
vant variables across organizations, assuming relative uniformity in the variable within the
organization. In other words, the design focuses on assessing variance across organizations
and then accounting for that variance in some way. In most cases variance across individ-
uals, groups, or sometimes even jobs, is ignored, thus assuming uniformity. For instance,
Huselid (1995) asked about HR practices for both managerial and hourly employees. While
this approach recognizes variance across two broad categories of employees, it ignores any
variance within these two categories.
We note that this distinction is not entirely clear cut. At the micro end, work groups of
6–10 people often receive research attention, and the group is treated as a unit, rather than
focusing on individuals. However, in such cases, researchers tend to demonstrate that the
individuals within groups share perceptions of focal constructs enough that the group can be
viewed as one entity. At the macro end, some studies have examined establishments (i.e., a
physical site within larger company) rather than the entire company. Thus, while one could
rightly argue that there are multiple levels of analysis within the HRM literature, we view
the macro area as one concerned with a unit of analysis that focuses on organization (be they
establishment, business unit or corporate) variables, and the micro area as that focusing on
individuals or small work groups with shared identity.
A second distinction within the HRM literature concerns the number of practices ex-
amined. A large number of studies have examined an individual practice (e.g., a selection
technique or battery) independent of any other HR practices that might exist. When con-
ducted by micro researchers, such research often aims at technological sophistication of a
particular HR practice through demonstrating the efficacy of a particular HR technique in
isolation from other HR practices (e.g., how highly a structured interview correlates with
individual job performance). Within the macro literature such research attempts to demon-
strate the organizational impact of a particular practice (e.g., how the use of stock options
correlates with organizational profitability).
On the other hand, some recent research has focused on sets of HR practices. These
research studies treat multiple HR practices as a system, whether referred to as a high
performance work system (HPWS) (Huselid, 1995) or as an HR practice configuration
(e.g., Delery & Doty, 1996; Lepak & Snell, 1999). This approach tends to assume that
individual practices can complement, substitute for, or even conflict with other practices,

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at Universidad Pablo de Olavide on April 14, 2008

© 2002 Southern Management Association. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
250 P.M. Wright, W.R. Boswell / Journal of Management 2002 28(3) 247–276

Figure 1. A typology of HRM research.

and thus to truly examine the impact of HR practices on any variable of interest, one
must examine the entire system of HR practices (Delery, 1998). As will be discussed later,
significant disagreement exists as to how to combine these practices (e.g., indexes, scales,
clusters), but the shared assumption is that multiple, rather than isolated, practices must be
examined.
Juxtaposing these two dimensions results in the typology shown in Figure 1. In the
upper left-hand quadrant, we see the research examining systems of HR practices at the
organizational level of analysis. We tend to see studies from the industrial relations and
strategic HRM fields falling in this category (e.g., Delery & Doty, 1996; Huselid, 1995;
MacDuffie, 1995). A number of studies fall here, and the number of studies focused here
seems to be increasing exponentially.
The lower right-hand quadrant reveals the area of HRM research focusing on single
HR practices and their impact on individuals. This is traditionally the domain of indus-
trial/organizational psychology, and a large volume of research has accumulated in this
area over the years.
Interestingly, the off quadrants reveal lower volumes of research. For instance, the upper
right quadrant examines individual practices at the organizational level of analysis. This
is exemplified by Terpstra and Rozelle’s (1993) study of the relationship between recruit-
ing/selection practices and firm performance, and by Gerhart and Milkovich’s (1990) study
of the relationship between compensation practices and firm performance. The lower left
quadrant focuses on research exploring multiple practices at the individual level of analy-
sis. This might be illustrated by psychological contract research, particularly that focusing
on how the system of HR practices influences individual perceptions of the psychological
contract (e.g., Rousseau & Greller, 1994).

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at Universidad Pablo de Olavide on April 14, 2008

© 2002 Southern Management Association. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
 P.M. Wright, W.R. Boswell / Journal of Management 2002 28(3) 247–276 251

Given this typology, the next section will attempt to review some of the more significant
research developments that have occurred in each of the quadrants over the past few years.
We focused our review on the 1998–2000 time frame in an attempt to review the work
that has appeared since the last Yearly Review of Management review of HRM (Ferris
et al., 1999). However, we sometimes deviate to prior years to discuss some representative
or classic studies that might provide better context to the more recent research, and include
a few 2001 studies that appeared by the time we finished this review. In addition, we limited
our review to the mainstream management/HRM journals. We recognize researchers in
other literatures (e.g., labor economics, sociology) often examine related phenomena, but
in order to keep the review to a reasonable length, we chose to focus on articles with which
likely readers of JOM would be familiar.

Multiple Practice Research at the Organization Level

The research on multiple (or systems of) HR practices at the organizational level so far
has revolved around two issues: the relationship between HR practices and performance
and classifications or configurations of HR practices.

HR Practices and Performance

Significant research attention has been devoted over the past few years to understanding
how HR systems (usually referred to as HPWS) can facilitate the accomplishment of a
firm’s strategic goals. Huselid’s (1995) study on the relationship between HR practices and
corporate financial performance serves as probably the seminal, and definitely most-cited
work in this area. This was soon followed by similar research conducted by Delaney
and Huselid (1996), Delery and Doty (1996), Huselid, Jackson and Schuler (1997), and
MacDuffie (1995). However, numerous researchers have built upon this foundation over
the past few years to add to this literature.
Ostroff (2000) found some support for a universalistic relationship between HR prac-
tices and performance. However, more importantly she found that the relationship between
clusters of HR practices and performance depended upon the business strategy of the firm.
In a study of 227 trucking firms, Shaw, Delery, Jenkins and Gupta (1998) found that HR
practices explained 20% of the variance in quit rates, and 10% of the variance in discharge
rates. Lam and White (1998) studied firms within 14 manufacturing industries and found
that firms’ HR orientations (measured by the effective recruitment of employees, above
average compensation, and extensive training and development) was related to return on
assets, growth in sales, and growth in stock values. Using a sample of banks, Richard
and Johnson (2001) examined the impact of strategic HRM effectiveness (ratings of how
effectively a variety of HR practices were performed) on a number of performance variables.
They found that strategic HRM effectiveness was directly related to employee turnover and
the relationship between this measure and return on equity was stronger among banks with
higher capital intensity (greater investments in branches). Whitener (2001) examined the
relationships among HR practices, employees’ perceived organizational support, organiza-
tional commitment, and trust in management among a sample of credit unions. She found

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at Universidad Pablo de Olavide on April 14, 2008

© 2002 Southern Management Association. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
252 P.M. Wright, W.R. Boswell / Journal of Management 2002 28(3) 247–276

that HR practices, in particular developmental appraisals and equitable rewards, affect the
relationship between perceived organizational support and organizational commitment.
On less positive notes, Cappelli and Newmark (2001) examined the relationships among
HR practices, pay, and labor efficiency (operationalized as output per dollar spent on la-
bor). These authors found that “high performance work practices” may raise productivity
slightly, but that they also raise labor costs. Consequently, in their study, they found no
impact on overall labor efficiency. Godard (2001) explored how alternative work practices
impact workers. He found that moderate levels of these practices were related to increased
employee attitudes such as job satisfaction, esteem, and commitment. However, he found
that higher levels of adoption, particularly with increased team autonomy and responsi-
bility, had negative effects. This negative effect was also observed for “Just-in-Time” and
re-engineering programs.
This line of research has burgeoned outside the US as well. Harel and Tzafrir (1999)
found that among public and private organizations within Israel, HR practices were related
to perceived organizational and market performance. Ichniowski and Shaw (1999) com-
pared Japanese and US steel production lines. They found that while Japanese lines were
more productive than US lines, when US lines used Japanese HR practices (problem solving
teams, information sharing, extensive orientation, training, job rotation, employment secu-
rity and profit sharing), they were as productive as Japanese lines. In an interesting study
using data on HR reported by French firms as required by French law, d’Arcimoles (1997)
found that investments in training had both an immediate and enduring effect on perfor-
mance, while wages were unrelated. In a study of 428 companies in Finland, Lahteenmaki,
Storey and Vanhala (1998) found that aspects of HR practices were rarely related to com-
pany performance, but were more strongly related to future performance expectations of
respondents.
Much of the recent research has been conducted in Korea. While, in a sample of 48
Korean firms, Lee and Chee (1996) found no relationship between HR practices and firm
performance, Bae and Lawler (2000) did find a significant relationship between HR and
firm performance in their sample of 138 Korean firms. Lee and Miller (1999) found some
evidence for a relationship between HR practices and performance among their sample
of Korean firms, but this relationship was most strongly pronounced among firms using
dedicated positioning (marketing differentiation or innovative differentiation) strategies.
Finally, Guthrie (2000) found that HR practices were related to both employee retention
and productivity among a sample of New Zealand firms. Interestingly, he found a disordinal
interaction such that retention was positively related to productivity for firms with High
Involvement Work practices, and negatively related for firms without them.
Since the mid-1990s which saw considerable research within the US aimed at demon-
strating the empirical relationship between HR practices and firm performance, it ap-
pears that much of this research has recently moved off-shore. Certainly the relation-
ship is of interest to US researchers, but it appears that within the US more attention is
now being devoted to critically evaluating past research and searching for new theoretical
and empirical paradigms (e.g., Delery, 1998; Gerhart, Wright, McMahan & Snell, 2000;
McMahan, Virick & Wright, 1999). However, the published research, regardless of its origin
seems to provide additional support for the notion that HR practices are related to important
measures of firm performance.

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at Universidad Pablo de Olavide on April 14, 2008

© 2002 Southern Management Association. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
 P.M. Wright, W.R. Boswell / Journal of Management 2002 28(3) 247–276 253

Classifying HR Practices

One of the key consistent trends within this research has been repeated efforts to classify
HR practices into categories. For instance, MacDuffie (1995) made a strong case for viewing
work systems as requiring that individuals have the necessary skills and abilities, that they
be motivated to do a good job, and that the system provides opportunities for them to
participate. In general, three approaches have been used to classify practices: conceptual,
factor analytic, and cluster analysis.
Lawler (1986) proposed the concepts of information sharing, knowledge/skill, power
(decision making), and rewards as ways to manage in a high performance/high commit-
ment environment. Delery, Gupta and Shaw (1997) argued that HR practices are aimed at
increasing employee skills, motivation, or empowerment. Similarly, Gardner, Moynihan,
Park and Wright (2000) used the skills, motivation, and empowerment categories for
classifying HR practices. Boudreau and Ramstad (1999) proposed the concepts of capa-
bility, opportunity, and motivation, which track quite well with categories proposed by
Delery et al. (1997) and Gardner et al. (2000).
From a more factor analytic perspective, Lee and Chee (1996) used items based on
Lawler’s (1986) categorization of employee involvement as practices aimed at informa-
tion sharing, knowledge/skill, power, and rewards. Their factor analysis results supported
this four-factor model. Huselid’s (1995) factor analysis of HR practices resulted in two
factors which he titled “Employee Skills and Organizational Structures” and “Employee
Motivation.”
A number of authors have used cluster analysis to group firms that seem to be exhibiting
similar HR strategies. Ostroff (2000) conducted a cluster analysis and found five HRM
systems. Comprehensive systems attempted to use the full range of HRM practices. In-
volvement systems consisted of an emphasis on practices aimed at increasing employee
skills and involve workers. Traditional systems focused on practices aimed at hierarchical
monitoring and control. Identification systems had low use of most HRM systems except for
practices aimed at organizational identification and commitment. Finally, the None system
tended to have relatively little use of HRM practices. Similarly, Becker and Huselid (1996)
submitted their cross-industry data to a cluster analysis and identified four HR clusters: per-
sonnel, alignment, compensation, and high performance. Arthur’s (1992) study categorized
HR systems as being either “commitment” or “control” systems. Lee and Chee (1996) also
submitted their results to a cluster analysis and observed four clusters: contingent payer,
information sharer, weak trainer, and low involver (weak on all items).
In summary, empirical categorization schemes do not reveal consistent patterns of HR
practices. However, it appears that consensus is emerging around the conceptual catego-
rizations of employee skills (practices aimed at attracting and developing the skills of the
workforce), motivation (practices that elicit high motivation), and empowerment (practices
enabling employee voice and influence). Whether these conceptual categorizations will
hold under empirical scrutiny remains to be seen. Delery (1998) provides a deep analysis
of the basic concepts underlying the classification of HR practices from a horizontal fit
perspective as well as their treatments empirically. However, this analysis does not clearly
point to preferences for conceptual indices, factor analytic, or cluster analytic derivations.
This epitomizes the need for further research in this area.

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at Universidad Pablo de Olavide on April 14, 2008

© 2002 Southern Management Association. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
254 P.M. Wright, W.R. Boswell / Journal of Management 2002 28(3) 247–276

Single Practice Research at the Organization Level

As noted before, fewer studies have focused on single HR practices in research con-
ducted at the organization level. Most often these studies have sought to demonstrate an
empirical relationship between the focal HR practice and some measure of organizational
effectiveness.
While not exactly a specific HR practice, Simons, Pelled and Smith (1999) examined
the diversity of top management teams among a sample of manufacturing companies. They
found that job-related aspects of diversity (education level, company tenure, functional
background) interacted with debate to predict organizational performance. Konrad and
Mangel (2000) found that quality of work life (QWL) programs were more strongly asso-
ciated with productivity for firms that had higher percentages of women in the workforce,
and that had a higher percentage of professionals employed. Perry-Smith and Blum (2000)
found that firms with extensive work-family policies had higher self-reported performance,
and that this relationship was stronger for older firms and firms with larger percentages of
female employees.
Compensation also has received some attention. Montemayor (1996) found that depar-
tures from strategically-indicated pay policies resulted in lower organizational performance.
Banker, Lee, Potter and Srinivasan (1996) found that outcome-based incentives had pos-
itive impacts on sales, customer satisfaction, and profit when competition was intense,
with higher percentages of upscale customers, and when supervisory monitoring was low.
Shaw, Gupta and Delery (2001) examined the impact of pay systems on organizational per-
formance within the concrete pipe industry. They found generally that poor performance was
observed when individual incentives were paired with Total Quality Management (TQM),
and high performance was observed when skill-based pay was paired with TQM.
With regard to work teams, Banker, Field, Schroeder and Sinha (1996) found
that both quality and labor productivity increase with the formation of work teams.
Batt (1999) observed that participation in self-managing teams resulted in increased
self-reported service quality and with sales per employee, whereas TQM did not affect
performance.
In spite of the plethora of research that exists on staffing systems at the individual level,
these systems have received considerably less attention at the organization level. Since
Terpstra and Rozelle’s (1993) study, only one other study has examined staffing systems.
Koch and McGrath (1996) found that firms using more sophisticated staffing practices
(planning, recruiting, and selection) had higher labor productivity.
Clearly, the bulk of macro HRM research appearing in the management literature (ex-
cluding economics journals that often examine compensation issues) has aimed at multiple,
rather than single practice studies. The single practice studies often appear driven by a
motivation to prove that a certain functional area “matters.” However, such studies are
problematic for a few reasons. First, they ignore the potential simultaneity that might exist
with other practices. For example, QWL or TQM programs are often accompanied by a
variety of HR practices such as training and skill-based compensation. If these two practices
tend to be implemented together, then examining the impact of one (e.g., training) without
examining the other (e.g., skill-based pay) might result in either a spurious relationship
(i.e., it’s the pay, not training that impacts performance) or at least an overestimate of the

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at Universidad Pablo de Olavide on April 14, 2008

© 2002 Southern Management Association. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
 P.M. Wright, W.R. Boswell / Journal of Management 2002 28(3) 247–276 255

effect of the focal variable. Thus, failure to control for other practices calls into question
the validity of observed effects (Ostroff & Bowen, 2000).
In addition, such attempts seem to ignore the basic conceptual model that HRM systems,
rather than an individual practices, impact employees and organizations. As we discuss later
with regard to horizontal fit, while on occasion, a single practice might have a profound
impact on firm performance (e.g., Continental Air Lines “on-time bonus” system), more
frequently multiple HR practices influence performance. Thus, while we do not call for a
moratorium on single practice macro research, we would argue that future studies will have
greater impact if they control for other HR practices.

Single Practice Research at the Individual Level

Volumes of studies have been conducted examining the impact of a variety of single
functional practices such as selection, training, recruitment, compensation, performance
management, and participation/work design. We discuss the recent research in these areas
below.

Selection

Personality as a predictor of employee effectiveness continues as a popular topic in the

selection literature. Indeed, one could argue that there has been an explosion of dispo-
sitional research, likely due in part to the emergence of a fairly well-accepted personality
framework—the “Big Five” (Goldberg, 1990). Personality has been shown to predict impor-
tant work outcomes including task and contextual performance (McManus & Kelly, 1999),
leadership (Judge & Bono, 2000), career success (Boudreau, Boswell & Judge, 2001; Judge,
Higgins, Thoresen & Barrick, 1999; Seibert & Kraimer, 2001), and employment status
(De Fruyt & Mervielde, 1999). The Big Five personality dimensions are commonly as-
sessed, showing divergent relationships with various outcomes and often having differential
effects depending on the work context investigated. For example, in studies using hetero-
geneous samples (Judge et al., 1999; Seibert & Kraimer, 2001), extraversion predicted
extrinsic success (e.g., salary, promotions) but was not significantly related to executive
extrinsic success (Boudreau et al., 2001). Caligiuri (2000) investigated the role of personal-
ity in predicting expatriate success, finding that extraverted and agreeable expats were less
likely to want to terminate their assignment and conscientious expats had more favorable
performance ratings. Judge and Bono (2000) found extraversion and agreeableness posi-
tively predicted transformational leadership behavior; however, the other dimensions of the
Big Five, including conscientiousness, were non-significant.
Building on the work regarding personality as an independent predictor, continuing re-
search has examined how personality (particularly conscientiousness) works in concert
with cognitive ability in predicting performance. Mount, Barrick and Strauss (1999) found
that though conscientiousness and cognitive ability individually were significant predictors
of performance in a variety of jobs (e.g., sales, managerial), the traits did not interact to
jointly predict performance. Conscientiousness and cognitive ability predicted multiple yet
somewhat divergent performance criteria in Mount, Witt and Barrick’s (2000) concurrent

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at Universidad Pablo de Olavide on April 14, 2008

© 2002 Southern Management Association. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
256 P.M. Wright, W.R. Boswell / Journal of Management 2002 28(3) 247–276

validation study involving clerical personnel. Specifically, both traits predicted quantity
and quality of work, cognitive ability predicted problem solving, and conscientiousness
predicted interpersonal facilitation. Judge et al. (1999) found a strong positive effect for
conscientiousness on intrinsic and extrinsic career success. They also found a positive ef-
fect for cognitive ability on extrinsic success over any effects for personality, and though
cognitive ability positively correlated with intrinsic success it was non-significant in the
presence of personality variables. Thus, the importance of cognitive ability in predicting
a variety of performance indicators has generally been upheld. The effect for conscien-
tiousness is somewhat more equivocal in light of the non-significant effects found in recent
research on leadership behaviors and career success.
Dispositional research is often criticized as not being theoretical (House, Shane & Herold,
1996). Research has begun to address this limitation by investigating possible mechanisms
through which personality variables may influence work outcomes. Boudreau et al. (2001)
suggested personality may influence career success indirectly through human capital and
motivational variables, though results indicated that these variables mediated little of the per-
sonality effect. Judge, Bono and Locke (2000) showed that the effect of core self-evaluations
(e.g., self-efficacy, locus of control) on job satisfaction is at least partially mediated by job
characteristics. In other words, employees with positive core evaluations may actually hold
more complex jobs or at least be predisposed to view the characteristics of their job more
positively.
The increasing use of work teams and groups in organizations has led to an increased
importance of research on team member traits, leadership in teams, and effective team
performance (Cohen & Bailey, 1997). Neuman and Wright (1999) found that job-specific
skills, cognitive ability, and personality (i.e., agreeableness, conscientiousness) were im-
portant predictors of performance in their study of HR work teams. Stevens and Campion
(1999) developed and validated a “teamwork” selection test that assesses interpersonal and
self-management KSAs. Research by Shaw, Duffy and Stark (2000) supports the importance
of preference for group work. This research found that both task and reward interdepen-
dence were positive predictors of satisfaction and that reward interdependence significantly
predicted performance, lending support to the importance of a context supportive of group
work.
Other recent selection research has focused on the selection interview (e.g.,
Barrick, Patton & Haugland, 2000; Cortina, Goldstein, Payne, Davison & Gilliland, 2000;
Ganzach, Kluger & Klayman, 2000), test-taking motivation (e.g., Sanchez, Truxillo &
Bauer, 2000), applicant reactions to selection systems (Ryan & Ployhart, 2000), and
adverse impact (e.g., Bobko, Roth & Potosky, 1999; De Corte, 1999; Ryan, Ployhart &
Friedel, 1998). Much of this research explores the role of personality and/or cognitive abil-
ity, providing further evidence as to the importance of these constructs in the selection
literature.

Training and Development

Much of the recent training and development research comes from a team perspective,
focusing on performance barriers in teams, self-management, and team mental models
(i.e., shared knowledge structures). Tesluk and Mathieu (1999) showed that performance-

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at Universidad Pablo de Olavide on April 14, 2008

© 2002 Southern Management Association. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
 P.M. Wright, W.R. Boswell / Journal of Management 2002 28(3) 247–276 257

constraints such as inadequate equipment and being understaffed lead to lower group per-
formance, while engaging in problem solving minimized these effects. Frayne and Geringer
(2000) showed that self-management skill training significantly improved job performance
for insurance salespeople, and that the performance effects were sustained, gradually in-
creasing over time. Mathieu, Heffner, Goodwin, Salas and Cannon-Bowers (2000) found
that task- and team-based mental models positively predicted team processes and perfor-
mance, and suggested training interventions, job rotation, and feedback programs are im-
portant for enhancing shared cognitions in workgroups.
New employee socialization and orientation also has received recent attention. Klein and
Weaver’s (2000) quasi-experimental study showed that employees attending a new hire
orientation were significantly more socialized in terms of company history, goals/values,
and people. Attending the orientation positively predicted subsequent affective organiza-
tional commitment, though the relation was fully mediated by organizational socialization.
Chan and Schmitt (2000) modeled the relationship between individual differences, proac-
tivity in the socialization process, and adaptation outcomes finding that seeking technical
information from coworkers and coworker relationship building decreased over time, seek-
ing technical information from supervisors and seeking referent information from cowork-
ers remained constant, and task mastery, role clarity, and social integration increased.
Allen, McManus and Russell (1999) found that mentoring positively related to overall
socialization and that socialization negatively related to both work stress and perceived
help in coping with stress. However, the findings suggest that formal peer mentors serve
more psychosocial than career-related functions.

Recruitment

It is perhaps not surprising, given the tight labor market and the increasing number of
opportunities facing employees (Business Week, 1999), that a great deal of recent research
focuses on the attractiveness of employers (e.g., Highhouse, Zicker, Thorsteinson, Stierwalt
& Slaughter, 1999). Barber, Wesson, Roberson and Taylor (1999) found that job-seekers var-
ied on their preference for large or small firms, and search activity and recruitment sources
used varied depending on these preferences (e.g., those seeking large companies engaged
in more active search behaviors and were more likely to use campus services). Highhouse,
Stierwalt, Bachiochi, Elder and Fisher (1999) found that African–Americans were more
likely to apply to a hypothetical job advertisement when it was identity-conscious (i.e., af-
firmative action) than when it was identity-blind (i.e., equal employment opportunity). The
participants also were more attracted to individual-based compensation, and reacted nega-
tively to a job advertised as involving individual-based work coupled with a group-based
performance pay system.
Recent research suggests that the information applicants receive from a company about
its culture is often unrealistically positive (Cable, Aiman-Smith, Mulvey & Edwards, 2000).
As noted by the authors, “the short-term benefits of beguiling applicants may be off-
set by subsequent turnover, poor fit, and lower commitment” (p. 1083). Phillips’ (1998)
meta-analysis supports this contention, finding that realistic job previews (RJPs) relate to
higher performance and lower initial expectations and turnover. In their reanalysis of how
RJPs operate, Hom, Griffeth, Palich and Bracker (1999) showed that RJPs promote accurate

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at Universidad Pablo de Olavide on April 14, 2008

© 2002 Southern Management Association. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
258 P.M. Wright, W.R. Boswell / Journal of Management 2002 28(3) 247–276

preemployment expectations, enhancing employee attitudes and reducing withdrawal

cognitions and turnover.
Kristof-Brown (2000) showed that recruiters distinguish between person–organization
(P–O) fit and person–job (P–J) fit, relying on different types of information when deter-
mining P–J fit vs. P–O fit (i.e., KSA vs. personality and values, respectively). Each type of
fit positively predicted hiring recommendations, though perceived P–J fit explained greater
variance thus supporting the continued importance to organizational recruiters of hiring
employees with the characteristics required for the “job.”

Compensation

Rynes and Bono (2000) reviewed the micro research on pay determinants noting that
task performance is not the only determinant of compensation. Indeed, recent research
suggests contextual performance plays an important role (e.g., Kiker & Motowidlo, 1999;
Van Scotter, Motowidlo & Cross, 2000). In terms of pay outcomes, recent research has
focused on incentive pay (see Jenkins, Mitra, Gupta & Shaw, 1998 meta-analysis). Sturman
and Short (2000) proposed and explored a measure of lump-sum bonus satisfaction. Wood,
Atkins and Bright (1999) found that bonuses based on end-of-period appraisal ratings lead
to setting more challenging goals but lower performance compared to bonuses based on
self-set goals. Moussa (2000) found that a straight piece-rate system coupled with instruc-
tions to set hard goals resulted in the highest level of set goals. A downside to pay for per-
formance was also recently demonstrated (Deckop, Mangel & Cirka, 1999). Pay for perfor-
mance negatively affected organizational citizenship behavior for those employees with low
value commitment. In other words, when employee and employer interests are not aligned,
the “performance pay link is the main employment exchange” (p. 422) perhaps providing
a disincentive for employees to engage in extrarole behaviors.
A few recent studies have focused on employee benefits. For example, a study focus-
ing on the mechanism through which individual differences predicted work outcomes
found that the effect of personal characteristics (e.g., years of service, risk preference)
on choice of retirement plans was primarily mediated by preferences (Dulebohn, Murray
& Sun, 2000). The researchers drew on attitude theory to argue the proximal influence
of employee plan preferences to retirement plan choice and that a choice is viewed pos-
itively when it is perceived as a source of benefit or reward. Using a social exchange
framework, Lambert (2000) showed that perceived usefulness of work-life benefits posi-
tively predicted organizational citizenship behavior (e.g., interpersonal helping), suggesting
that employees finding value in what the organization offers is particularly important for
reciprocation.
Researchers have recently explored the role of pay dispersion within organizations. This
line of research is likely driven in part by business press reports of escalating CEO and top
manager pay and the possible deleterious effects on employees. In his study of major league
baseball players, Bloom (1999) found that greater pay dispersion was negatively related to
individual and team performance but that the effect was moderated by an individual’s
position within the pay distribution. Specifically, more hierarchical pay negatively related
to performance for people lower in the pay distribution but dispersion positively related to
performance for those higher in the distribution. It appears that hierarchical pay can lead

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at Universidad Pablo de Olavide on April 14, 2008

© 2002 Southern Management Association. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
 P.M. Wright, W.R. Boswell / Journal of Management 2002 28(3) 247–276 259

to feelings of inequity and create motivational problems. Pay fairness also has been the
focus of recent research (Heneman & Judge, 2000). For example, the relationship between
skill-based pay and positive employee reactions appears to be mediated by perceived fairness
(Lee, Law & Bobko, 1999).

Performance Management

The perpetual “criterion problem” continues to receive considerable attention within

the performance management literature. Micro research has increasingly recognized the
more general role of employees’ contributing to an organization’s success, perhaps beyond
specifically defined job duties. This perspective is reflected in recent research on extrarole
behavior and predictors of performance that generalize across jobs.
There has been a great deal of recent research on extrarole (contextual or organizational
citizenship) behavior, arguing that contributing to an organization’s strategic success means
employees may need to go above and beyond responsibilities defined in their job descriptions
(e.g., Lam, Hui & Law, 1999). Morrison and Phelps (1999) suggest that “taking charge” is
an important dimension of extrarole behavior, arguing that organizations need “employees
who are willing to challenge the present state of operations to bring about constructive
change” (p. 403) for continued viability. Taking charge was predicted by self-efficacy,
felt responsibility for bringing about change, and perceived top management openness.
Other research supports the importance of perceived organizational support to both extra-
and in-role behavior (Hofmann & Morgeson, 1999), particularly for employees fearing
exploitation (Lynch, Eisenberger & Armeli, 1999). Goodman and Svyantek (1999) found
organizational culture and, more importantly, P–O fit, predicted contextual performance.
Taken together, this research highlights the importance of both contextual and individual
factors in supporting important employee work behavior.
Related research argues that today’s dynamic business environment necessitates the ad-
dition of adaptive performance (e.g., flexibility, tolerance for uncertainty) to extant con-
ceptualizations of important performance dimensions (e.g., Campbell, 1999; Hesketh &
Neal, 1999). Pulakos, Arad, Donovan and Plamondon (2000), for example, developed a
multidimensional measure of adaptive employee performance, finding that many adaptive
performance dimensions are critical across a variety of jobs. Worker adaptability on di-
mensions such as culture, work stress, and creative problem solving may be particularly
important given the changing nature of work, globalization, and innovations in technol-
ogy. Lepine, Colquitt and Erez (2000) recently noted the importance of cognitive ability,
openness, and low conscientiousness to adaptability.
Expanding employee job roles suggests that performance management should involve the
measurement, evaluation, and development of performance beyond what is derived from the
job analysis. In other words, the traditional notion that job characteristics are derived from
the function of the job (McCormick, 1976) may be obsolete. In their recent development
of a theory-based measure of employee performance, Welbourne, Johnson and Erez (1998)
identified five work-related roles and demonstrated that consideration of these multiple
roles is a useful and valid approach to assessing performance. As noted, “evaluating only
those work behaviors defined by the organization as related to a specific job may exhibit
deficiency error” (p. 542).

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at Universidad Pablo de Olavide on April 14, 2008

© 2002 Southern Management Association. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
260 P.M. Wright, W.R. Boswell / Journal of Management 2002 28(3) 247–276

Research also has begun to look beyond the cognitive processing and “accuracy” as-
pects of performance management, focusing more on actual changes in employee behav-
ior (Findley, Giles & Mossholder, 2000) and enhanced employee attitudes and reactions
(Druskat & Wolff, 1999; Dulebohn & Ferris, 1999; Keeping & Levy, 2000). For exam-
ple, Mayer and Davis (1999) showed that a performance appraisal system comprised of a
self-appraisal, communication of expectations, and employee participation enhanced em-
ployee trust in management. Perhaps most important is the role of performance management
in actually improving performance. Walker and Smither (1999) found a favorable perfor-
mance effect for an upward feedback system on initially poor and moderate performers over
a 5-year period. This study also found that performance improved the most for managers
who met with their subordinates to discuss the feedback, supporting the importance of what
managers do with the feedback they receive.
Recent research has explored the parameters of feedback system effectiveness. For ex-
ample, Williams, Miller, Steelman and Levy (1999) showed that feedback seeking in a
public setting is enhanced and reactions toward the feedback more positive in a supportive
environment. Nease, Mudgett and Quinones (1999) found that self-efficacy moderated the
relationship between repeated negative feedback and feedback acceptance such that indi-
viduals with high self-efficacy decreased their acceptance of feedback while this change in
acceptance did not occur for those with low self-efficacy. A study on upward feedback indi-
cates that attitudes toward the organization and the performance management system may
influence the effectiveness of such systems at bringing about performance improvements
(Atwater, Waldman, Atwater & Cartier, 2000). Atwater et al. also found a positive relation-
ship between subordinate ratings of supervisors and supervisors’ subsequent commitment
to those subordinates.

Participation/Work Design

Recent research on work design also recognizes the changing nature of work. For ex-
ample, Edwards, Scully and Brtek (1999) proposed changing employment arrangements
and work activities require measures of work that are “valid, comprehensive, and appli-
cable across contexts” so that determinants and consequences of work attributes can be
explored. Edwards et al. examined the Multimethod Job Design Questionnaire (Campion,
1988; Campion & Thayer, 1985), and through exploratory analysis, found that the MJDQ
may be best specified as a 10-factor measure of work (e.g., feedback, specialization, work
conditions).
Baltes, Briggs, Huff, Wright and Neuman (1999) meta-analyzed the effects of alterna-
tive work schedules on various work outcomes. Results indicated a favorable influence of
flextime on productivity, satisfaction, and absenteeism. Compressed workweeks positively
influenced satisfaction and supervisor rating of performance, but not productivity or ab-
senteeism. Similarly, Kossek and Ozeki’s (1998) meta-analysis found a strong, negative
relation between work-family conflict and both job and life satisfaction.
Prior research suggests that participation positively effects employee performance and
satisfaction (Locke, Alavi & Wagner, 1997), though the effect on performance likely de-
pends on whether an individual possesses relevant knowledge (e.g., Scully, Kirkpatrick &
Locke, 1995). Regarding satisfaction, Roberson, Moye and Locke (1999) found that

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at Universidad Pablo de Olavide on April 14, 2008

© 2002 Southern Management Association. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
 P.M. Wright, W.R. Boswell / Journal of Management 2002 28(3) 247–276 261

perceived fairness plays a role. Their research showed that procedural justice fully me-
diated the relation between participation and task satisfaction, suggesting that “reactions to
procedures are a significant factor in determining employee satisfaction” (p. 591). Wanberg
and Banas (2000) found that participating in and receiving information about a change
process enhanced employee openness to workplace change. Cawley, Keeping and Levy’s
(1998) meta-analysis found strong support for the importance of participation in the perfor-
mance appraisal process to work attitudes. The importance of involvement and discretion to
teams has also been noted. Kirkman and Rosen (1999) found that team empowerment (i.e.,
autonomy, impact, meaningfulness, potency) positively correlated with performance and
attitudinal outcomes. Alper, Tjosvold and Law’s (2000) study of self-managing work teams
showed that a cooperative approach to conflict resolution (e.g., emphasizing mutual goals,
understanding everyone’s views) enhanced conflict self-efficacy and ultimately employee
effectiveness.
Certainly a plethora of single practice—individual level research exists and this body of
research continues to grow. Note that this vein of research recognizes individual differences
in reactions to a given HR practice, and specifically focuses on the variance associated with
those differences.

Multiple Practice Research at the Individual Level

Rousseau and colleagues’ research on psychological contracts represents research in-

vestigating multiple practices at the individual level. Specifically, Rousseau and Greller
(1994) argue experiences within an organization, specifically HR practices, shape employee
beliefs regarding the terms of the employee–organization exchange relationship (i.e., psy-
chological contract). They further propose that aligning the various HR practices can help
an organization send a consistent message to employees regarding mutual expectations.
Guest (1998) proposed a similar perspective, arguing that organizational culture, HR prac-
tices and policies, and the like shape psychological contracts. It should be noted that this
stream of research focuses on individual perceptions stemming from a set of practices;
thus psychological contracts and related perceptions are perhaps best viewed as the linking
mechanism between HR practices and individual attitudes and behaviors.
There also has been some empirical work on psychological contracts. Gundry and
Rousseau (1994) explored critical events identified by new employees (e.g., casual dress
code, menial work assignment) and how these events relate to the employees’ perceived
behavioral norms within the organization. Thomas and Anderson (1998) showed that new
employees’ perceptions regarding the organizations’ obligations change over time, and that
these changes result in part from acquiring new information. Robinson and Rousseau (1994)
found that psychological contracts are often violated, and that this associates positively with
turnover and negatively with trust and satisfaction. A related study on employer induce-
ments (i.e., rewards for performance, job/career growth opportunities, and commitment
[e.g., opportunity for input, job security]) showed the greater the discrepancy between what
the employee perceived as the inducement offered and what the employer reported offering,
the lower the level of satisfaction with the organization (Porter, Pearce, Tripoli & Lewis,
1998).

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at Universidad Pablo de Olavide on April 14, 2008

© 2002 Southern Management Association. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
262 P.M. Wright, W.R. Boswell / Journal of Management 2002 28(3) 247–276

Other research has explored alternative types of employment relationships as they relate
to individual employee outcomes. Tsui, Pearce, Porter and Tripoli (1997) explored the ef-
fect of four employee–organization relationship approaches on various employee outcomes.
More specifically, they investigated the balance between employer-expected employee con-
tributions (e.g., rewards based on performance) and employer-offered inducements (e.g.,
recruit from within). Results indicated that the mutual investment and overinvestment ap-
proaches generally associated with high levels of employee performance and more favorable
attitudes compared to the quasi-spot-contract (i.e., highly circumscribed) and underinvest-
ment approaches. Similarly, Shore and Barksdale (1998) focused on employee (e.g., accept
transfers) and employer (e.g., high pay) obligations, finding four types of exchange rela-
tionships (mutual high obligations, employee under-obligation, employee over-obligation,
mutual low obligations). Results indicated that the mutual high obligation group had the
highest levels of commitment, perceived organizational support, optimism about career,
and intent to stay with the organization. These findings are consistent with macro research
showing positive firm-level effects for high involvement/commitment work systems (e.g.,
Arthur, 1994; Huselid, 1995).
The dearth of research aimed at understanding how multiple (or systems) of HR prac-
tices impact individuals certainly suggest a ripe opportunity for future research. Much of the
strategic HRM research assumes systems of practices impacting groups of people rather ho-
mogeneously, but given our knowledge of individual differences, this assumption is tenuous,
at best.

Future Trends and Issues in HRM Research

Having presented the typology and reviewed some of the recent developments in HRM
in its context, we now turn to exploring the implications for future directions.

Bridging the Macro/Micro Gulf

As noted earlier, past Yearly Reviews have traditionally compartmentalized the micro
and macro HRM research, virtually ignoring their interface. An integrative view of the field
requires that we examine how these two areas can contribute to one another as well as the
kind of interesting questions that emanate from their nexus.

Applying Micro Rigor to Macro Research

One of the most obvious places of contribution stems from the extensive research method-
ology and analytic techniques that have evolved within the micro research domain. While
early macro research has revealed a number of interesting and provocative relationships,
this emerging field can now benefit from more rigorous methodologies and techniques.
For example, much of the macro HR research relies on single respondents for assessing
HR variables. Yet, within the micro HR literature, a long history of research has focused on
the low interrater reliabilities that often exist when assessing relevant variables such as job

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at Universidad Pablo de Olavide on April 14, 2008

© 2002 Southern Management Association. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
 P.M. Wright, W.R. Boswell / Journal of Management 2002 28(3) 247–276 263

performance (Viswesvaran, Ones & Schmidt, 1996). Micro researchers consequently seek
ways to either increase the interrater reliability of their measures, and/or to correct for the
effects of unreliability in their observed relationships. However, until recently, the issue of
interrater reliability almost has been ignored within the macro HRM literature.
Gerhart et al. (2000) found that the single rater reliability of individual HR practice items
averaged about .16, and even a scale artificially constructed to maximize reliability could
only reach .40. Wright et al. (2001) presented three additional studies supporting concerns
about the reliability of single rater measures of organizational HR practices. While we
have no expectation that single rater designs will (or should) disappear, it certainly seems
advisable to devote more attention in the design of studies toward finding ways to reliably
measure the relevant constructs.
In addition, the macro HR field has utilized almost exclusively cross-sectional designs.
Given the potential for systematic bias in the measures of HR (Gardner, Wright & Gerhart,
1999), it seems that much more work needs to be done with longitudinal designs to provide
more valid evidence of the causal impact of HR on performance.

Apply Macro Goals to Micro Research

Just as macro research can benefit from micro methodology, micro HRM research can
learn from the overarching goals of macro research. Criticized by some as tending towards
an overly managerialist orientation (Kochan, 1999), macro HRM research has tended to
adopt the assumption shared by strategy researchers that organizations seek to maximize
their economic performance. Innovative research by Huselid (1995) and Welbourne and
Cyr (1999) both seek to demonstrate that HR somehow impacts shareholder wealth.
This by no means implies that micro HRM research ignored organizational goals or pays
no attention to economic performance. Rather, the point is that over time, as researchers
become more and more focused on developing a deeper understanding of a narrowly defined
phenomenon (e.g., halo error), one can often lose sight of the end goal. This results in
practicing HR executives seeing little value in particular research studies that might be
quite rigorous, and built upon strong research streams.
Macro HRM research also generally seeks to understand HRM systems as a goal, rather
than individual practices. Yet much of the micro HRM research focuses on individual
HR practices. Applying macro goals to micro research also would entail broadening such
research to more frequently study multiple HR practices or systems and their impact on
individuals. Again, while developing a deeper understanding of how an individual practice
can be designed and implemented to maximum effectiveness can be valuable, failing to
study the practice in the context of its implementation within a system may lead researchers
to overestimate the impact of the practice. Potentially significant insights might be gained
as micro researchers expand their attention from individual practices to HR systems.

Recognize the Distinction Between Policies and Practices

HR policies represent the firm or business unit’s stated intention about the kinds of
HR programs, processes, and techniques that should be carried out in the organization.
HR practices consist of the actual programs, processes and techniques that actually get

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at Universidad Pablo de Olavide on April 14, 2008

© 2002 Southern Management Association. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
264 P.M. Wright, W.R. Boswell / Journal of Management 2002 28(3) 247–276

operationalized in the unit (Gerhart et al., 2000; Huselid & Becker, 2000). Recognizing this
distinction has a number of implications for HR research.
First, from a macro HR perspective, it highlights the need to assess the actual practices
rather than the stated policies (Huselid & Becker, 2000). Because employees can only
respond to actual practices, any research attempting to demonstrate a relationship between
HRM and firm performance stands on firmer ground when assessing the actual practices
rather than the intended policies. This may imply that asking senior HR executives to
indicate practices has less validity than asking employees themselves. And if, due to practical
considerations, senior HR executives must be tapped, instructions need to clearly distinguish
between the policies and practices, and emphatically request respondents to indicate the
practices, and not the policies.
Second, this distinction elicits a series of interesting questions around the basic issue of
why policies and practices do not converge. What happens between the decision to design
and develop a 360 degree performance appraisal system and its actual implementation in the
organization? Why is it that applicant scores from the most technically complex selection
batteries are often ignored by decision-makers? How can we be sure that employees are
attending the right kinds of training conducted with the most effective learning techniques?
These questions reveal gaps between the formulation and implementation of HR practices,
the causes of which we know very little (Wright & Snell, 1998).
Third, this distinction should encourage greater specificity in macro measures of HR prac-
tices. Micro HR research has focused intensely on creating the most technically effective HR
practices. Significant volumes of research data exist demonstrating the efficacy of practices
such as structured interviewing, behavior modeling training, and 360 degree performance
appraisal. Ostroff (2000) notes that much macro HRM ignores these technically-specific
distinctions in favor of more broadly stated practice items such as “What percentage of
employees undergo formal performance appraisals?” or “How many hours of training, on
average, do employee receive each year?” This lack of convergence between what we know
to be technically sophisticated HR practices based on micro literature and generic mea-
sures used in macro research has been criticized elsewhere (Ferris et al., 1999; Wright &
Sherman, 1999). While researchers have continued to improve upon their measures such
as moving from “employment tests” to “validated employment tests” (Huselid & Becker,
2000), there is still much work to be done in developing macro HR practice measures that
more accurately reflect our knowledge of best in class micro HR practices.

Recognize Variance in HR Practices Within Organizations

As noted previously, much of the macro HRM research empirically assumes invariability
in HR practices across large groups of jobs within organizations. On the other hand, micro
HRM research has been consistently more focused on studying individuals within particular
jobs (especially in the areas of selection and training). These researchers, as opposed to their
macro colleagues fully recognize the need for job-specific HRM practices.
The macro view is both naı̈ve and potentially detrimental to the development of the
field. Conceptually, Lepak and Snell (1999) pointed out the naivete of this approach and
Lepak and Snell (in press) empirically demonstrated that firms manage different employee
groups differently. Failing to recognize this results in flawed analyses and interpretations

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at Universidad Pablo de Olavide on April 14, 2008

© 2002 Southern Management Association. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
 P.M. Wright, W.R. Boswell / Journal of Management 2002 28(3) 247–276 265

of existing results. For instance, if different job groups have vastly different HR practices,
yet respondents are asked to provide an assessment that aggregates across these job groups
the researcher has no idea what s/he is obtaining. This might impact the ability to identify
consistent clusters of HR practices if the clusters exist within job groups but are masked
when aggregating across job groups.
Thus, macro research would be better served by focusing on either key/core jobs in any
given study, or at least attempting to assess practices for more coherent job groups than
simply managerial vs. hourly. Focusing on key/core jobs might be a useful approach for
within industry studies as exemplified by Delery and Doty (1996) or MacDuffie (1995).
On the other hand, in across industry studies, researchers could attempt to assess practices
relative to the nine different job categories for which the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission requires reporting demographic information. This would provide for much
clearer understanding of HR configurations and variations.

Linking Employees to the Firm’s Strategy

The premise behind much of the macro HRM research is that organizational processes
should be properly aligned to produce synergy and compatibility in organizational direction
thus helping to support strategic success (Cappelli & Singh, 1992). However, it is equally
important to consider the degree to which the actual human resources (i.e., employees)
are aligned with and contributing to the organization’s strategic goals. As discussed by
Boudreau and Ramstad (1999, 2000), HR practices support employee capability, oppor-
tunity, and motivation to enact those behaviors critical for accomplishing key business
processes and strategic success, yet we know little about translating business strategy into
individual employee perceptions and behaviors.
Although we know little about the causes, processes, or consequences of strategically
aligning employees, the importance of this issue is not new (e.g., Ulrich, 1998; Ulrich &
Lake, 1991; Wright & McMahan, 1992). However, the literature has generally been at the
conceptual level, arguing the importance of employee alignment with the organization’s
strategy. When empirical, it often proceeds to focus solely on the role of HRM practices
in achieving alignment. Research by Gratton, Hope-Hailey, Stiles and Truss (1999), for
example, discussed the challenges and processes underlying the alignment of individual
behaviors and business strategy. They proposed a model illustrating the link between or-
ganizational strategy and individual performance and discussed where the linkages were
strongest among participant organizations. The research showed that though clear objectives
were set, workforce development was often weakly linked to business strategy. Further, the
companies generally were focused on short-term people strategies rather than longer-term
processes.
Boswell (2000) argued that employee “line of sight” to an organization’s strategic ob-
jectives is imperative for an organization to attain its strategic objectives and ultimately
be successful. This research found support for the importance of employees understand-
ing an organization’s strategy and, more importantly, how to contribute to its strategic
success and to various work outcomes (e.g., attitudes, reduced job strain). Important ques-
tions to consider in future research might include: “Do employees see a coherent organiza-
tional strategy?” “How can strategic employee alignment be supported?” “Does redundancy

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at Universidad Pablo de Olavide on April 14, 2008

© 2002 Southern Management Association. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
266 P.M. Wright, W.R. Boswell / Journal of Management 2002 28(3) 247–276

matter?” “When is strategic employee alignment most important?” Answering these ques-
tions will likely require integration of the micro and macro literatures and processes.

Conduct Multilevel Research

One of the major macro/micro distinctions seems to be that the research tends to be
mutually exclusive in that either the study focuses on the individual or the organizational
level of analysis (Ostroff & Bowen, 2000). This has, in large part, been due to practical
considerations. When focused on the individual level of analysis, researchers can gain access
relatively easily to many individuals within one organization, but not across more than one
organization. When cross-organizational research is designed, researchers find it easier to
identify one or a small number of respondents, but not a large number of internal respondents
across multiple organizations. In addition to the access issue, multilevel research has been
limited by the statistical techniques available to researchers.
Recent developments, however, might enable future research to better assess multilevel
issues. For instance, standardized surveys conducted by consulting firms such as Gallup
(Buckingham & Coffman, 1999) or Fortune’s “Best Companies to Work For” survey pro-
cess are generating data with large numbers of internal employee respondents across large
numbers of organizations. While these data have yet to make it into the academic literature,
they certainly can provide much deeper and more fruitful information towards integrating
macro and micro wings of HRM research.
Researchers need not rely solely on consulting firms for such data. Increasingly firms
may be amenable to conducting research across sites in order to gain an understanding of the
determinants of high vs. low performing units. For example, Gardner et al. (2000) collected
HR practice and employee attitude data on six jobs across 33 business units within one com-
pany. This data enabled them to examine the relationships among HR practices, employee
attitudes, and other variables at the individual, job, and business unit levels of analysis.
In addition, researchers are beginning to learn and use more complex statistical tech-
niques such as repeated measures regression (Cohen & Cohen, 1983; Hollenbeck, Ilgen &
Sego, 1994; Koslowski & Klein, 2000) and hierarchical linear modeling (Hofmann, 1997).
These techniques enable researchers to simultaneously tease out individual, group, and or-
ganizational level effects. We expect that as more multilevel data sets become available
and researchers become better versed in multilevel statistical techniques, we will see the
beginning of a breakdown of the macro/micro gulf.
Finally, in addition to multilevel empirical research, the field also can benefit from further
development of multilevel conceptual and theoretical modeling. Ostroff and Bowen (2000)
present the first attempt at developing a rather comprehensive conceptual model of how
HR practices impact firm performance using a multilevel model. This effort exemplifies
the kind of thinking that must take place over the next few years in order to move the field
toward a much deeper understanding of the phenomena we study.

Integrating Single and Multiple HR Practices

The distinction between research investigating single vs. multiple HR practices similarly
requires integration in order to advance the field. Mahoney and Deckop (1986) in their review

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at Universidad Pablo de Olavide on April 14, 2008

© 2002 Southern Management Association. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
 P.M. Wright, W.R. Boswell / Journal of Management 2002 28(3) 247–276 267

noted that each of the functional areas of HRM had evolved from different disciplines. For
instance, they wrote:
Employee compensation was viewed as a market phenomena by labor economists and
as a reward influencing individual motivation by industrial psychologists. Employee
selection was approached as an application of psychometric classification and prediction.
Employee training and development was viewed as the application of learning theory.
(p. 235)
They, along with many others (Delery & Doty, 1996; Ferris et al., 1999; Huselid, 1995;
Wright & McMahan, 1992; Wright & Snell, 1991) have called for understanding what
distinguishes a group of independent HR practices from a coherent HR strategy. The im-
plications of this integrative approach are discussed below.

Understanding and Assessing Horizontal Fit

Wright and McMahan (1992) argued that one aspect of strategic HRM consisted of
creating a horizontal fit among the various HR practices such that they complemented,
rather than competed with one another. This concept also has been referred to as “internal
alignment” (Becker & Gerhart, 1996; Huselid, 1995).
Interestingly, researchers have taken different approaches to thinking about horizontal fit.
For example, Mahoney and Deckop (1986) argued that Kerr’s (1954) model of labor mar-
ket structure (job/craft structure, organizational career, or unstructured market) provided a
framework for developing consistent clusters of HR practices. Other authors have hypoth-
esized clusters of HR practices based on strategy type (Schuler & Jackson, 1987; Wright
& Snell, 1991), employment relationship (Lepak & Snell, 1999), or internal career ladder
(Delery & Doty, 1996). Each of these efforts attempted to conceptually develop typologies
of HR practices that should fit with each other.
On the other hand, some authors have attempted to empirically derive clusters of HR
practices that might constitute a “horizontal fit.” In an early effort, Arthur (1992) examined
HR practices within steel minimills. After gathering data from 38 minimills, he subjected
the HR practice measures to a cluster analysis. While his initial analysis revealed six clus-
ters, he eventually combined them into two basic types: commitment vs. control HR sys-
tems. As previously discussed, Ostroff (2000) observed five clusters of HR practices, and
Becker and Huselid (1996) identified four HR clusters.
It is important to note in light of the discussion above, that virtually all of the conceptual
and empirical efforts to identify horizontally aligned HR practices have used generic HR
practices such as “pay for performance” or “valid employment tests.” These approaches
assume that the generic practices should differ across organizational or employment types
such that practices A, B, and C, should be observed for one system and practices D, E, and F
for another. While intuitively appealing, the research has failed so far to observe consistent
differences that can form the basis for a stable typology.
Another approach to horizontal fit, however, deals not with the practices themselves,
but rather, the outcomes the practices seek to elicit. Wright (1998) argued that the most
important type of horizontal fit among HR practices to organizations would be when the
practices all promote the same organizationally relevant outcomes. For example, for a firm

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at Universidad Pablo de Olavide on April 14, 2008

© 2002 Southern Management Association. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
268 P.M. Wright, W.R. Boswell / Journal of Management 2002 28(3) 247–276

seeking to compete through customer service, horizontal fit among the HR practices would
exist when the selection system attracts and selects people with high levels of customer
service attitudes and skills, when the reward system rewards those who serve customers,
and when training provides skills that enable employees to effectively serve customers.
In fact, recent emphasis on competency models provides a basic framework for creating
horizontal fit. Such models identify a relevant set of behavioral competencies, and then HR
practices can be designed to complementarily promote the selection and development of
those competencies in individuals.
Needless to say, the issue of horizontal fit among HR practice has not been solved. Future
research has a number of avenues at its disposal to attempt to address what horizontal fit is,
how it is developed, and how it can be measured.

Aggregating Practices Empirically

Delery (1998) presented a valuable overview regarding the aggregation of multiple HR

practices in empirical research. He noted that researchers can view practices as being ei-
ther additive or interactive. Additive views imply that all the practices have independent
non-overlapping effects on the outcomes. Interactive views can result in two different types
of relationships. First, HR practices can be seen as “substitutes” where either practice alone
results in positive outcomes but adding one practice to another results in no incremental ben-
efit. Second, some suggest that HR practices can have “synergy” effects. Positive synergy
would exist when multiple practices together result in greater positive impact than the sum
of the effects of individual practices. Negative synergy would exist where the combination
of practices results in lower impact than the sum of the individual practice effects.
These conceptualizations of the impact of HR practices have important implications
for the actual aggregation procedures. Delery (1998) notes that scales assume that items
(practices) are measuring an underlying construct while indexes are measures of the level
of a construct. He suggests that most research on HR practices should use an index, rather
than a scale approach, because there is seldom an underlying construct across HR practices
and the practices may often be substitutable. He also discusses the use of and problems
with cluster analysis approaches to identify firms with similar HR system types. Finally he
notes alternative approaches to aggregation such as using discrepancies from an a priori
defined system of practices or the use of individual practices and their interactions to capture
synergistic effects. Clearly, researchers must pay more attention to aggregation issues both
conceptually and empirically.

Identifying Employee Perceptions and Reactions

As previously noted, recent research seems to suggest variance in individual’s perceptions

of HR practices in organizations (Gerhart et al., 2000; Wright et al., 2001). Interestingly,
we know very little regarding what causes employees perceptions to differ so substantially.
Ostroff and Bowen (2000) present one attempt toward explaining this issue by their in-
troduction of the construct of HR system strength. They suggest that strong HR systems
create social structures with little ambiguity regarding organizational goals and routines
(i.e., climate perceptions) and the exchange between the employee and employer (i.e.,

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at Universidad Pablo de Olavide on April 14, 2008

© 2002 Southern Management Association. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
 P.M. Wright, W.R. Boswell / Journal of Management 2002 28(3) 247–276 269

psychological contract beliefs). They propose a number of characteristics that determine

HR system strength, including visibility (are HR processes and outcomes shared with em-
ployees?), clarity (is the information easily understandable?), acceptability (do employees
buy into the system?), consistency of administration (are practices uniformly applied across
employees and across time?), effectiveness of administration (do practices do as designed?),
internal consistency (i.e., the horizontal fit), and intensity (how much time and effort is de-
voted to implementing practices?).
This description of HR system strength can go far to help the field begin to both better
understand and define the concept of horizontal fit, as well as to delineate the processes
through which HR practices can impact firm performance. We often hear of organizations
that attempted to copy an HR practice or set of practices from a successful organization,
only to find that the copied practices did not result in the same beneficial outcomes. Given
that employee perceptions serve as the first link between HR practices and any outcomes,
it seems important to better define the aspects of HR systems that might result in divergent
perceptions. The Ostroff and Bowen (2000) effort goes quite far in identifying these aspects,
and certainly serves as a foundation for a whole set of future studies.

Conclusion

The field of HRM has evolved significantly over the past 90–100 years. The birth of the
strategic part of HRM occurred barely 20 years ago (Wright, 1998). Yet, since that time, the
traditional, functional, micro, and strategic macro sides of HRM have developed in parallel,
yet independent paths. Micro HRM research has resulted in technically sophisticated and
demonstrably effective specific HR practices such as structured interviewing, cognitive
ability testing, 360 degree performance appraisal, behavior modeling training, and a plethora
of incentives such as gainsharing, profit sharing, stock options, and bonuses. Macro HRM
research has demonstrated that organizations implementing more of a set of generic HR
practices (e.g., tests, appraisals, training) tend to outperform those implementing fewer of
those practices.
Each of these areas has progressed, yet each has far to go. We believe that the existing
parallel lines of research must soon redirect toward intersecting in order to maximize the
impact of HRM on organizational effectiveness. Macro HRM research can surely benefit
from the rigor and knowledge produced within the micro field. Similarly, micro research
will surely profit from recognizing the systemic, organizational context within which indi-
vidual practices exist. Researchers who focus on integrating these areas of HRM will more
profoundly impact the future of our field than those who aim toward dividing them.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Michael Wesson, Quinetta Roberson, Christopher Collins and
two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. The
first author also wishes to acknowledge that support for the preparation of this paper was
provided by the Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies at Cornell University.

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at Universidad Pablo de Olavide on April 14, 2008

© 2002 Southern Management Association. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
270 P.M. Wright, W.R. Boswell / Journal of Management 2002 28(3) 247–276

References

Allen, T. D., McManus, S. E., & Russell, J. E. A. 1999. Newcomer socialization and stress: Formal peer relationships
as a source of support. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54: 453–470.
Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, K. S. 2000. Conflict management, efficacy, and performance in organizational
teams. Personnel Psychology, 53: 625–642.
Arthur, J. B. 1992. The link between business strategy and industrial relations systems in American steel minimills.
Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 45: 488–506.
Arthur, J. B. 1994. Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance and turnover. Academy of
Management Journal, 37: 670–687.
Atwater, L. E., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, D., & Cartier, P. 2000. An upward feedback field experiment: Supervisors’
cynicism, reactions, and commitment to subordinates. Personnel Psychology, 53: 275–297.
Bae, J., & Lawler, J. J. 2000. Organizational and HRM strategies in Korea: Impact on firm performance in an
emerging economy. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 502–517.
Baltes, B. B., Briggs, T. E., Huff, J. W., Wright, J. A., & Neuman, G. A. 1999. Flexible and compressed workweek
schedules: A meta-analysis of their effects on work-related criteria. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 496–
513.
Banker, R. D., Field, J. M., Schroeder, R. G., & Sinha, K. K. 1996. Impact of work teams on manufacturing
performance: A longitudinal field study. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 867–890.
Banker, R. D., Lee, S., Potter, G., & Srinivasan, D. 1996. Contextual analysis of performance impacts of
outcome-based incentive compensation. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 920–948.
Barber, A. E., Wesson, M. J., Roberson, Q. M., & Taylor, M. S. 1999. A tale of two job markets: Organizational
size and its effects on hiring practices and job search behavior. Personnel Psychology, 52: 841–867.
Barrick, M. R., Patton, G. K., & Haugland, S. N. 2000. Accuracy of interviewer judgements of job applicant
personality traits. Personnel Psychology, 53: 925–951.
Batt, R. 1999. Work organization, technology, and performance in customer service and sales. Industrial and
Labor Relations Review, 52: 539–564.
Becker, B., & Gerhart, G. 1996. The impact of HRM on organizational performance: Progress and prospects.
Academy of Management Journal, 39: 779–801.
Becker, B. E., & Huselid, M. A. 1996. Methodological issues in cross-sectional and panel estimates of the human
resource-firm performance link. Industrial Relations, 35: 400–422.
Bloom, M. 1999. The performance effects of pay dispersion on individuals and organizations. Academy of
Management Journal, 42: 25–40.
Bobko, P., Roth, P. L., & Potosky, D. 1999. Deviation and implications of a meta-analytic matrix incorporating
cognitive ability, alternative predictors, and job performance. Personnel Psychology, 52: 561–589.
Boswell, W. R. 2000. Aligning employees with the organization’s strategic objectives: Out of “line of sight,” out
of mind. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation.
Boudreau, J. W., Boswell, W. R., & Judge, T. A. 2001. Executive career success in the US and Europe: Effects of
personality. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58: 53–81.
Boudreau, J. W., & Ramstad, P. M. 1999. Human resource metrics: Can measures be strategic? In P. Wright,
L. Dyer, B. J. Boudreau, & G. Milkovich (Eds.), Strategic human resources management in the twenty-first
century. Supplement 4 to G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and HRM: 75–98. Stanford, CT: JAI Press.
Boudreau, J. W., & Ramstad, P. M. 2000. Counting what counts: HC bridge as a guide to strategic HRM. Working
paper.
Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. 1999. How great managers develop top people. Workforce, 78: 102–104.
Business Week 1999. Labor markets in the new economy. Staff report, 242.
Cable, D. M., Aiman-Smith, L., Mulvey, P. W., & Edwards, J. R. 2000. The sources and accuracy of job applicants’
beliefs about organizational culture. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 1076–1085.
Caligiuri, P. M. 2000. The Big Five personality characteristics as predictors of expatriate’s desire to terminate the
assignment and supervisor-rated performance. Personnel Psychology, 53: 67–88.
Campbell, J. P. 1999. The definition and measurement of performance in the new age. In D. R. Ilgen & E. D.
Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, and development:
399–430. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at Universidad Pablo de Olavide on April 14, 2008

© 2002 Southern Management Association. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
 P.M. Wright, W.R. Boswell / Journal of Management 2002 28(3) 247–276 271

Campion, M. A. 1988. Interdisciplinary approaches to job design: A constructive replication with extensions.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 73: 467–481.
Campion, M. A., & Thayer, P. W. 1985. Development and field evaluation of an interdisciplinary measure of job
design. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70: 29–43.
Cappelli, P., & Newmark, D. 2001. Do “high performance” work practices improve establishment level outcomes?
Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 54: 737–775.
Cappelli, P., & Singh, H. 1992. Integrating strategic human resources and strategic management. In D. Lewin,
O. S. Mitchell, & P. Sherer (Eds.), Research frontiers in industrial relations and human resources: 165–192.
Madison, WI: Industrial Relations Research Association.
Cawley, B. D., Keeping, L. M., & Levy, P. E. 1998. Participation in the performance appraisal process and employee
reactions: A meta-analytic review of field investigations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 615–633.
Chadwick, C., & Cappelli, P. 1999. Alternatives to generic strategy typologies in strategic HRM. In P. Wright, L.
Dyer, J. Boudreau, & G. Milkovich (Eds.), Strategic human resources management in the twenty-first century.
Supplement 4 to G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and HRM: 1–29. Stanford, CT: JAI Press.
Chan, D., & Schmitt, N. 2000. Interindividual differences in intraindividual changes in proactivity during
organizational entry: A latent growth modeling approach to understanding newcomer adaptation. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 85: 190–210.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. 1983. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral science. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. 1997. What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to
the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23: 239–290.
Cortina, J. M., Goldstein, N. B., Payne, S. C., Davison, H. C., & Gilliland, S. W. 2000. The incremental validity
of interview scores over and above cognitive ability and conscientiousness score. Personnel Psychology, 53:
325–351.
d’Arcimoles, C. H. 1997. Human resource policies and company performance: A quantitative approach using
longitudinal data. Organization Studies, 18: 857–874.
De Corte, W. 1999. Weighing job performance predictors to both maximize the quality of the selected workforce
and control the level of adverse impact. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 695–702.
Deckop, J. R., Mangel, R., & Cirka, C. C. 1999. Getting more than you pay for: Organizational citizenship behavior
and pay-for-performance plans. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 420–428.
De Fruyt, F., & Mervielde, I. 1999. RIASEC types and Big Five traits as predictors of employment status and
nature of employment. Personnel Psychology, 52: 701–727.
Delaney, J. T., & Huselid, M. A. 1996. The impact of human resource management practices on perceptions of
organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 949–969.
Delery, J. E. 1998. Issues of fit in strategic human resource management: Implications for research. Human
Resource Management Review, 8: 289–309.
Delery, J. E., & Doty, D. H. 1996. Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource management: Tests of
universalistic, contingency, and configurational performance predictions. Academy of Management Journal,
39: 802–835.
Delery, J. E., Gupta, N., & Shaw, J. D. 1997. Human resource management and firm performance: A systems
perspective. Paper presented at the 1997 Southern Management Association Meeting, Atlanta, GA.
Druskat, V. U., & Wolff, S. B. 1999. Effects and timing of developmental peer appraisals in self-managing work
groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 58–74.
Dulebohn, J. H., & Ferris, G. R. 1999. The role of influence tactics in perceptions of performance evaluations’
fairness. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 288–303.
Dulebohn, J. H., Murray, B., & Sun, M. 2000. Selection among employer-sponsored pension plans: The role of
individual differences. Personnel Psychology, 53: 405–432.
Edwards, J. R., Scully, J. A., & Brtek, M. D. 1999. The measurement of work: Hierachical representation of the
Multimethod Job Design Questionnaire. Personnel Psychology, 52: 305–334.
Ferris, G. R., Hochwarter, W. A., Buckley, M. R., Harrell-Cook, G., & Frink, D. D. 1999. Human resources
management: Some new directions. Journal of Management, 25: 385–415.
Findley, H. M., Giles, W. F., & Mossholder, K. W. 2000. Performance appraisal process and system facets:
Relationships with contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 634–640.
Fisher, C. D. 1989. Current and recurrent challenges in HRM. Journal of Management, 15: 157–180.

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at Universidad Pablo de Olavide on April 14, 2008

© 2002 Southern Management Association. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
272 P.M. Wright, W.R. Boswell / Journal of Management 2002 28(3) 247–276

Frayne, C. A., & Geringer, J. M. 2000. Self-management training for improving job performance: A field
experiment involving salespeople. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 361–372.
Ganzach, Y., Kluger, A. N., & Klayman, N. 2000. Making decisions from an interview: Expert measurement and
mechanical combination. Personnel Psychology, 53: 1–20.
Gardner, T., Wright, P., & Gerhart, B. 1999. Mental models of HRs impact on firm performance. Impact on validity
and reliability of estimates. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Meeting, Chicago, IL.
Gardner, T. M., Moynihan, L. M., Park, H. J., & Wright, P. M. 2000. Unlocking the black box: Examining
the processes through which human resource practices impact business performance. Paper presented at the
Academy of Management Meeting, Toronto.
Gerhart, B., & Milkovich, G. T. 1990. Organizational differences in managerial compensation and financial
performance. Academy of Management Journal, 33: 663–691.
Gerhart, B., Wright, P. M., & McMahan, G. C. 2000. Measurement error in research on the human resources and
firm performance relationship: Further evidence and analysis. Personnel Psychology, 53: 855–872.
Gerhart, B., Wright, P. M., McMahan, G. C., & Snell, S. A. 2000. Measurement error in research on human
resources and firm performance: How much error is there and how does it influence effect size estimates?
Personnel Psychology, 53: 803–834.
Godard, J. 2001. High performance and the transformation of work? The implications of alternative work practices
for the experience and outcomes of work. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 54: 776–805.
Goldberg, L. R. 1990. An alternative “description of personality”: The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 59: 1216–1229.
Goodman, S. A., & Svyantek, D. J. 1999. Person–organization fit and contextual performance: Do shared values
matter? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55: 254–275.
Gratton, L., Hope-Hailey, V., Stiles, P., & Truss, C. 1999. Linking individual performance to business strategy:
The people process model. Human Resource Management, 38: 17–31.
Guest, D. E. 1998. Is the psychological contract worth taking seriously? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19:
649–664.
Gundry, L. K., & Rousseau, D. M. 1994. Critical incidents in communicating culture to newcomers: The meaning
is the message. Human Relations, 47: 1063–1088.
Guthrie, J. P. 2000. High Involvement Work practices, turnover and productivity: Evidence from New Zealand.
Academy of Management Journal.
Harel, G. H., & Tzafrir, S. S. 1999. The effect of human resource management practices on the perceptions of
organizational and market performance of the firm. Human Resource Management, 38: 185–199.
Heneman, H. G., & Judge, T. A. 2000. Compensation attitudes. In S. Rynes & B. Gerhart (Eds.), Compensation
in organizations: 61–103. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hesketh, B., & Neal, A. 1999. Technology and performance. In D. R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The
changing nature of performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, and development: 21–55. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Highhouse, S., Stierwalt, S. L., Bachiochi, P., Elder, A. E., & Fisher, G. 1999. Effects of advertised human resource
management practices on attraction of African–American applicants. Personnel Psychology, 52: 425–442.
Highhouse, S., Zicker, M. J., Thorsteinson, T. J., Stierwalt, S. L., & Slaughter, J. E. 1999. Assessing company
employment image: An example in the fast food industry. Personnel Psychology, 52: 151–172.
Hofmann, D. A. 1997. An overview of the logic and rationale of hierarchical linear models. Journal of Management
(Special Issue: Focus on Hierarchical Linear Modeling), 23: 723–744.
Hofmann, D. A., & Morgeson, F. P. 1999. Safety-related behavior as a social exchange: The role of perceived
organizational support and leader–member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 286–296.
Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., & Sego, D. J. 1994. Repeated measures regression and mediational tests: Enhancing
the power of leadership research. Leadership Quarterly, 5: 3–23.
Hom, P. W., Griffeth, R. W., Palich, L. E., & Bracker, J. S. 1999. Revisiting met expectations as a reason why
realistic job previews work. Personnel Psychology, 52: 97–112.
House, R. J., Shane, S. A., & Herold, D. M. 1996. Rumors of the death of dispositional research are vastly
exaggerated. Academy of Management Review, 21: 203–224.
Huselid, M. A. 1995. The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate
financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 635–672.

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at Universidad Pablo de Olavide on April 14, 2008

© 2002 Southern Management Association. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
 P.M. Wright, W.R. Boswell / Journal of Management 2002 28(3) 247–276 273

Huselid, M. A., & Becker, B. E. 2000. Comment on “measurement error in research on human resources and firm
performance: How much error is there and how does it influence effect size estimates?” In B. Gerhart, P. M.
Wright, G. C. McMahan, & S. A. Snell (Eds.), Personnel Psychology, 53: 835–854.
Huselid, M. A., Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. 1997. Technical and strategic human resource management
effectiveness as determinants of firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 40: 171–188.
Ichniowski, C., & Shaw, K. 1999. The effects of human resource management systems on economic performance:
An international comparison of US and Japanese plants. Management Science, 45: 704–721.
Jenkins, G. D., Jr., Mitra, A., Gupta, N., & Shaw, J. D. 1998. Are financial incentives related to performance? A
meta-analytic review of empirical research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 777–787.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. 2000. Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 85: 751–765.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., & Locke, E. A. 2000. Personality and job satisfaction: The mediating role of job
characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 237–249.
Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. 1999. The Big Five personality traits, general
mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52: 621–652.
Keeping, L. M., & Levy, P. E. 2000. Performance appraisal reaction: Measurement, modeling, and method bias.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 708–723.
Kerlinger, F. N. 1973. Foundations of behavioral research (2nd ed.). New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston Inc.
Kerr, C. 1954. The Balkanization of labor markets. In E. W. Bakke, P. M. Hauser, G. L. Palmer, C. A. Myers, D.
Yoder, & C. Kerr (Eds.), Labor mobility and economic opportunity: 93–109. New York: Wiley.
Kiker, D. S., & Motowidlo, S. J. 1999. Main and interaction effects of task and contextual performance on
supervisory reward decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 602–609.
Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. 1999. Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team
empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 58–74.
Klein, H. J., & Weaver, N. A. 2000. The effectiveness of an organizational-level orientation training program in
the socialization of new hires. Personnel Psychology, 53: 47–66.
Koch, M. J., & McGrath, R. G. 1996. Improving labor productivity: Human resource management policies do
matter. Strategic Management Journal, 17: 335–354.
Kochan, T. 1999. Beyond myopia: Human resources and the changing social contract. In P. Wright, L. Dyer, J.
Boudreau, & G. Milkovich (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Supplement 4):
199–212. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Konrad, A. M., & Mangel, R. 2000. The impact of work-life programs on firm productivity. Strategic Management
Journal, 21: 1225–1237.
Koslowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. 2000. A multilevel approach to theory and research on organizations: Contextual,
temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and
methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions: 3–90. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kossek, E., & Ozeki, C. 1998. Work-family conflict, policies, and the job-life satisfaction relationship: A review and
directions for organizational behavior human resource research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 139–149.
Kristof-Brown, A. L. 2000. Perceived applicant fit: Distinguishing between recruiters’ perceptions of person–job
and person–organization fit. Personnel Psychology, 53: 643–671.
Lahteenmaki, S., Storey, J., & Vanhala, S. 1998. HRM and company performance: The use of measurement and
the influence of economic cycles. Human Resource Management Journal, 8: 51–65.
Lam, S. S. K., Hui, C., & Law, K. S. 1999. Organizational citizenship behavior: Comparing perspectives of
supervisors and subordinates across four international samples. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 594–601.
Lam, L. W., & White, L. P. 1998. Human resource orientation and corporate performance. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 9: 351–364.
Lambert, S. J. 2000. Added benefits: The link between work-life benefits and organizational citizenship behavior.
Academy of Management Journal, 43: 801–815.
Lawler, E. E. 1986. High involvement management: Participative strategies for improving organizational
performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lee, M. B., & Chee, Y. 1996. Business strategy, participative human resource management and organizational
performance: The case of South Korea. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 34: 77–94.
Lee, C., Law, K. S., & Bobko, P. 1999. The importance of justice perceptions on pay effectiveness: A 2-year study
of a skill-based pay plan. Journal of Management, 25: 851–873.

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at Universidad Pablo de Olavide on April 14, 2008

© 2002 Southern Management Association. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
274 P.M. Wright, W.R. Boswell / Journal of Management 2002 28(3) 247–276

Lee, J., & Miller, D. 1999. People matter: Commitment to employees, strategy and performance in Korean firms.
Strategic Management Journal, 20: 579–593.
Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. 1999. The human resource architecture: Toward a theory of human capital allocation
and development. Academy of Management Review, 24: 31–48.
Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. in press. Examining the human resource architecture: The relationships among human
capital, employment, and human resource configurations, Journal of Management, forthcoming.
Lepine, J. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Erez, A. 2000. Adaptability to changing task contexts: Effects of general cognitive
ability, conscientiousness, and openness to experience. Personnel Psychology, 53: 563–593.
Locke, E. A., Alavi, M., Wagner, J. A., III. 1997. Participation in decision making: An information exchange
perspective. In G. R. Ferris, et al. (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management: 15, 293–331.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Lynch, P. D., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. 1999. Perceived organizational support: Inferior vs. superior
performance by wary employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 467–483.
MacDuffie, J. P. 1995. Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance: Organizational logic and flexible
production systems in the world auto industry. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48: 197–221.
Mahoney, T. A., & Deckop, J. R. 1986. Evolution of concept and practice in personnel administration/human
resource management (PA/HRM). Journal of Management, 12: 223–241.
Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. 2000. The influence of shared
mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 273–283.
Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. 1999. The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: A
field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 123–136.
McCormick, E. 1976. Job and task analysis. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational
psychology: 651–696. Chicago: Rand McNally.
McMahan, G. C., Virick, M., & Wright, P. M. 1999. Alternative theoretical perspectives for SHRM: Progress,
problems, and prospects. In P. Wright, L. Dyer, J. Boudreau, & G. Milkovich (Eds.), Research in personnel
and human resource management (Supplement 4): 99–122. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
McManus, M. A., & Kelly, M. L. 1999. Personality measures and biodata: Evidence regarding their incremental
predictive value in the life insurance industry. Personnel Psychology, 52: 137–148.
Montemayor, E. F. 1996. Congruence between pay policy and competitive strategy in high-performance firms.
Journal of Management, 22: 889–908.
Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. 1999. Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change.
Academy of Management Journal, 42: 403–419.
Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Strauss, J. P. 1999. The joint relationship of conscientiousness and ability with
performance: Test of the interaction hypothesis. Journal of Management, 25: 707–721.
Mount, M. K., Witt, L. A., & Barrick, M. R. 2000. Incremental validity of empirically keyed biodata scales over
GMA and the five factor personality constructs. Personnel Psychology, 53: 299–323.
Moussa, F. M. 2000. Determinants, process, and consequences of personal goals and performance. Journal of
Management, 26: 1259–1285.
Nease, A. A., Mudgett, B. O., & Quinones, M. A. 1999. Relationships among feedback sign, self-efficacy, and
acceptance of performance feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 806–814.
Neuman, G. A., & Wright, J. 1999. Team effectiveness: Beyond skills and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 84: 376–389.
Ostroff, C. 2000. Human resource management and firm performance: Practices, systems, and contingencies.
Working paper, Arizona State University.
Ostroff, C., & Bowen, D. E. 2000. Moving HR to a higher level: HR practices and organizational effectiveness.
In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Koslowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations.
Perry-Smith, J. E., & Blum, T. C. 2000. Work-family human resource bundles and perceived organizational
performance. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 1107–1117.
Phillips, J. M. 1998. Effects of realistic job previews on multiple organizational outcomes: A meta-analysis.
Academy of Management Journal, 41: 673–690.
Porter, L. W., Pearce, J. L., Tripoli, A. M., & Lewis, K. M. 1998. Differential perceptions of employers’
inducements: Implications for psychological contracts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19: 769–782.
Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., Donovan, M. A., & Plamondon, K. E. 2000. Adaptability in the workplace: Development
of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 612–624.

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at Universidad Pablo de Olavide on April 14, 2008

© 2002 Southern Management Association. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
 P.M. Wright, W.R. Boswell / Journal of Management 2002 28(3) 247–276 275

Richard, O. C., & Johnson, N. 2001. Strategic human resource management effectiveness and firm performance.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12: 299–310.
Roberson, Q. M., Moye, N. A., & Locke, E. A. 1999. Identifying a missing link between participation and
satisfaction: The mediating role of procedural justice perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 585–
593.
Robinson, S. L., & Rousseau, D. M. 1994. Violating the psychological contract: Not the exception but the norm.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15: 245–259.
Rousseau, D. M., & Greller, M. M. 1994. Human resource practices: Administrative contract makers. Human
Resource Management, 33: 385–401.
Ryan, A. M., & Ployhart, R. E. 2000. Applicants’ perceptions of selection procedures and decisions: A critical
review and agenda for the future. Journal of Management, 26: 565–606.
Ryan, A. M., Ployhart, R. E., & Friedel, L. A. 1998. Using personality testing to reduce adverse impact: A
cautionary note. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 298–307.
Rynes, S. L., & Bono, J. E. 2000. Psychological research on determinants of pay. In S. Rynes & B. Gerhart (Eds.),
Compensation in organizations: 3–31. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sanchez, R. J., Truxillo, D. M., & Bauer, T. N. 2000. Development and examination of an expectancy-based
measure of test-taking motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 739–750.
Schuler, R. S., & Jackson, S. E. 1987. Linking competitive strategies with human resource management. Academy
of Management Executive, 1: 207–219.
Scully, J. A., Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. 1995. Locus of knowledge as a determinant of the effects of
participation on performance, affect, and perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
61: 276–288.
Seibert, S. E., & Kraimer, M. L. 2001. The five-factor model of personality and career success. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 58: 1–21.
Shaw, J. D., Delery, J. E., Jenkins, G. D., & Gupta, N. 1998. An organization-level analysis of voluntary and
involuntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 41: 511–525.
Shaw, J. D., Duffy, M. K., & Stark, E. M. 2000. Interdependence and preference for group work: Main and
congruence effects on the satisfaction and performance of group members. Journal of Management, 26: 259–
279.
Shaw, J. D., Gupta, N., & Delery, J. 2001. Congruence between technology and compensation systems: Implications
for strategy implementation. Strategic Management Journal, 22: 379–386.
Shore, L. M., & Barksdale, K. 1998. Examining degree of balance and level of obligation in the employment
relationship: A social exchange approach. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19: 731–744.
Simons, T., Pelled, L. H., & Smith, K. A. 1999. Making use of difference: Diversity, debate, and decision
comprehensiveness in top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 662–673.
Stevens, M. J., & Campion, M. A. 1999. Staffing work teams: Development and validation of a selection test for
teamwork settings. Journal of Management, 25: 207–228.
Sturman, M. C., & Short, J. C. 2000. Lump-sum bonus satisfaction: Testing the construct validity of a new pay
satisfaction dimension. Personnel Psychology, 53: 673–700.
Terpstra, D. E., & Rozelle, E. J. 1993. The relationship of staffing practices to organizational level measures of
performance. Personnel Psychology, 46: 27–48.
Tesluk, P. E., & Mathieu, J. E. 1999. Overcoming roadblocks to effectiveness: Incorporating management of
performance barriers into models of work group effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 200–217.
Thomas, H. D. C., & Anderson, N. 1998. Changes in newcomers’ psychological contracts during organizational
socialization: A study of recruits entering the British Army. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19: 745–767.
Tsui, A. S., Pearce, J. L., Porter, L. W., & Tripoli, A. M. 1997. Alternative approaches to the employee–organization
relationship: Does investment in employees pay off? Academy of Management Journal, 40: 1089–1121.
Ulrich, D. 1998. Intellectual capital = competence × commitment. Sloan Management Review, 39: 15–26.
Ulrich, D., & Lake, D. 1991. Organizational capability: Creating competitive advantage. Academy of Management
Executive, 5: 77–92.
Van Scotter, J., Motowidlo, S. J., & Cross, T. C. 2000. Effects of task performance and contextual performance on
systemic rewards. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 526–535.
Viswesvaran, C., Ones, D. S., & Schmidt, F. L. 1996. Comparative analysis of the reliability of job performance
ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 557–574.

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at Universidad Pablo de Olavide on April 14, 2008

© 2002 Southern Management Association. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
276 P.M. Wright, W.R. Boswell / Journal of Management 2002 28(3) 247–276

Walker, A. G., & Smither, J. W. 1999. A 5-year study of upward feedback: What managers do with their results
matters. Personnel Psychology, 52: 393–423.
Wanberg, C. R., & Banas, J. T. 2000. Predictors and outcomes of openness to changes in a reorganizing workplace.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 132–142.
Welbourne, T. M., & Cyr, L. A. 1999. The human resource executive effect in initial public offering firms. Academy
of Management Journal, 42: 616–629.
Welbourne, T. M., Johnson, D. E., & Erez, A. 1998. The role-based performance scale: Validity analysis of a
theory-based measure. Academy of Management Journal, 41: 540–555.
Whitener, E. M. 2001. Do “high commitment” human resource practices affect employee commitment? A
cross-level analysis using hierarchical linear modeling. Journal of Management, 27.
Williams, J. R., Miller, C. E., Steelman, L. A., & Levy, P. E. 1999. Increasing feedback seeking in public contexts:
It takes two (or more) to tango. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 969–976.
Wood, R. E., Atkins, P. W. B., & Bright, J. E. H. 1999. Bonuses, goals, and instrumentality effects. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 84: 703–720.
Wright, P. M. 1998. HR fit: Does it really matter? Human Resource Planning, 21: 56–57.
Wright, P. M., Gardner, T. M., Moynihan, L. M., Park, H. J., Gerhart, B., & Delery, J. R. 2001. Measurement error
in research on human resources and firm performance: Additional data and suggestions for future research.
Personnel Psychology, 54: 875–901.
Wright, P. M., & McMahan, G. C. 1992. Theoretical perspectives for strategic human resource management.
Journal of Management, 18: 295–320.
Wright, P. M., & Sherman, W. S. 1999. Failing to find fit in strategic human resource management: Theoretical and
empirical problems. In P. Wright, L. Dyer, B. J. Boudreau, & G. Milkovich (Eds.), Strategic human resources
management in the twenty-first century. Supplement 4 to G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human
resource management. Stanford, CT: JAI Press.
Wright, P. M., & Snell, S. A. 1991. Toward an integrated view of strategic human resource management. Human
Resource Management Review, 1: 203–225.
Wright, P. M., & Snell, S. A. 1998. Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibility in strategic human
resource management. Academy of Management Review, 23: 756–772.

Patrick M. Wright received his MBA and Ph.D. from the College of Business Adminis-
tration at Michigan State University in 1988. Pat is currently Professor of Human Resource
Studies in the School of ILR at Cornell University. His research interests focus primarily on
how firms use people as a source of competitive advantage and the role HR functions and
practices play in creating such advantage. He has published in Academy of Management
Journal, Academy of Management Review, Personnel Psychology, Strategic Management
Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, and Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes among others. He currently serves on six editorial boards including Personnel
Psychology and Journal of Management.

Wendy R. Boswell received her Ph.D. in Human Resource Studies from the School of
Industrial & Labor Relations at Cornell University in 2000. She is an Assistant Profes-
sor in the Department of Management, Lowry Mays College and Graduate School of
Business, Texas A&M University. Her research interests include employee attraction and
retention, strategic employee alignment, work-related stress, and executive job search. Her
work appears in Journal of Applied Psychology, Human Resource Management, Journal of
Vocational Behavior, Personnel Psychology, and Journal of Business & Psychology.

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at Universidad Pablo de Olavide on April 14, 2008

© 2002 Southern Management Association. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.