Full download ebook at ebookgate.

com

Human Resource Strategy Formulation

Implementation and Impact 2nd Edition Peter
A. Bamberger

https://ebookgate.com/product/human-resource-
strategy-formulation-implementation-and-
impact-2nd-edition-peter-a-bamberger/

Download more ebook from https://ebookgate.com

More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Investing in People Financial Impact of Human Resource

Initiatives 2nd Edition Wayne F. Cascio

https://ebookgate.com/product/investing-in-people-financial-
impact-of-human-resource-initiatives-2nd-edition-wayne-f-cascio/

Formulation Implementation and Control of Competitive

Strategy With Access Code for Business Week
Subscription 11th Edition Ii Pearce

https://ebookgate.com/product/formulation-implementation-and-
control-of-competitive-strategy-with-access-code-for-business-
week-subscription-11th-edition-ii-pearce/

Aligning Human Resources and Business Strategy 2nd

Edition Linda Holbeche

https://ebookgate.com/product/aligning-human-resources-and-
business-strategy-2nd-edition-linda-holbeche/

Internet Marketing Strategy Implementation and Practice

3rd Edition Dave Chaffey

https://ebookgate.com/product/internet-marketing-strategy-
implementation-and-practice-3rd-edition-dave-chaffey/
Ultrasound Guidance in Regional Anaesthesia Principles
and practical implementation 2nd Edition Peter Marhofer

https://ebookgate.com/product/ultrasound-guidance-in-regional-
anaesthesia-principles-and-practical-implementation-2nd-edition-
peter-marhofer/

From Resource Allocation to Strategy Joseph L. Bower

https://ebookgate.com/product/from-resource-allocation-to-
strategy-joseph-l-bower/

AMSCO Advanced Placement Human Geography Teacher

Resource 2nd Edition David Palmer

https://ebookgate.com/product/amsco-advanced-placement-human-
geography-teacher-resource-2nd-edition-david-palmer/

New Frontiers in Human Resource Development Routledge

Studies in Human Resource Development 1st Edition Jean
Woodall

https://ebookgate.com/product/new-frontiers-in-human-resource-
development-routledge-studies-in-human-resource-development-1st-
edition-jean-woodall/

Human Resource Development Learning and Training for

Individuals and Organizations 2nd Edition John P Wilson

https://ebookgate.com/product/human-resource-development-
learning-and-training-for-individuals-and-organizations-2nd-
edition-john-p-wilson/
Human Resource Strategy, Second Edition

What is human resource strategy? How are human resources strategies formulated
and how can we explain the variance between what is espoused and what is actu-
ally implemented? What impact—if any—does human resource strategy have on the
organization’s “bottom line,” and how can this impact be explained? Is there one best
HR strategy for all firms, or is the impact of HR strategy on performance contingent
on some set of organizational, technological or environmental factors?
Human Resource Strategy, 2nd edition, provides an overview of the academic and
practitioner responses to these and other questions. Applying an integrative frame-
work, the authors review 30 years’ worth of empirical and theoretical research in an
attempt to reconcile often-conflicting conceptual models and competing empirical
results. Complex theoretical models and scientific findings are presented in an acces-
sible and relevant way, in the context of the strategic decisions that executives are
forced to make on a regular basis.
This new edition features an updated literature review, coverage of the latest chal-
lenges to HR strategy, new mini-cases, discussion questions, additional examples,
and an emphasis on the strategic implications of the research, making it an ideal
resource for students and practitioners alike.

Peter A. Bamberger is Dean of Research and Professor of Organizational Behavior

at the Recanati Business School at Tel Aviv University, Israel, and Senior Research
Scholar at Cornell University’s ILR School, USA.

Michal Biron is Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Management, University of Haifa,

Israel, and a visiting researcher in the Department of Human Resource Studies at
Tilburg University, the Netherlands.

Ilan Meshoulam is Professor at the Faculty of Management, University of Haifa,

Israel.
This page intentionally left blank
Human Resource Strategy
Formulation, Implementation,
and Impact

Second Edition

Peter A. Bamberger, Michal Biron,

and Ilan Meshoulam
Second Edition published 2014
by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2014 Taylor & Francis
The right of Peter A. Bamberger, Michal Biron, and Ilan Meshoulam to be
identified as authors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with
sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any
information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the
publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered
trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to
infringe.
First edition published in 2000 by Sage.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Human resource strategy : formulation, implementation, and impact / Peter A.
Bamberger, Michal Biron, & Ilan Meshoulam. — 2 Edition.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. Personnel management. I. Biron, Michal. II. Meshoulam, Ilan. III. Title.
HF5549.B258 2014
658.3'01—dc23 2013048558
ISBN: 978-0-415-65862-1
ISBN: 978-0-415-65863-8
ISBN: 978-0-203-07583-8

Typeset in Minion
by Apex CoVantage, LLC
 CONTENTS

Part I Human Resource Strategy: Emergence and Types 1

1 Introduction 3

2 The Adoption, Formulation, and Implementation of HR Strategies 17

3 Models of HR Strategy 42

Part II Subsystem-Specific Human Resource Strategies 69

4 The People Flow Subsystem 71

5 The Performance Management Subsystem 102

6 The Compensation Subsystem 124

7 The Employee Relations Subsystem 149

Part III Human Resource Strategy: Impact, Challenges, and

Developing Approaches 177

8 The Impact of HR Strategy 179

9 Diversity and Intergenerational Strategies 196

10 Globalization and HR Strategy 215

11 Convergence and Divergence in HR Strategy: Evidence from

the BRIC Countries 228
Allan Claudius Queiroz Barbosa, Júnia Marçal Rodrigues (Brazil);
Anna Gryaznova (Russia); Ashok SOM (India); Lei Wang, Jingjing Ma,
and Jenny Chen Li (China)

References 257

Suggestions for Further Information 303

Index 317

v
This page intentionally left blank
 I
Human Resource Strategy

Emergence and Types

This page intentionally left blank
 1
INTRODUCTION

After close to 20 years of hopeful rhetoric about becoming “strategic partners”

with a “seat at the table” where the business decisions that matter are made,
most human-resources professionals aren’t nearly there. . . . HR is the corpo-
rate function with the greatest potential—the key driver, in theory, of business
performance—and also the one that most consistently under-delivers.
—Hammonds (2005, p. 40)

The HR value proposition means that HR practices, departments, and

professionals produce positive outcomes for key stakeholders—employees, line
managers, customers, and investors. . . . When others receive value from HR
work, HR will be credible, respected and influential.
—Ulrich and Brockbank (2005, pp. 2, 8)

ORIGINS OF HUMAN RESOURCES STRATEGY RESEARCH

Human resource management (HRM) has changed dramatically since its establish-
ment as the discipline of personnel administration in the first quarter of the 20th
century. Emerging from the “welfare officers” of the late 1800s, the new discipline—
grounded in the nascent paradigm of industrial psychology and encouraged by the
disciples of Frederick Taylor in the 1920s—was viewed as a possible solution to such
nagging problems as worker inefficiency and worker unrest (Barley & Kunda, 1992;
Schuler & Jackson, 2007). A core tenet of Taylorism was the notion that work becomes
more productive and less arduous when individuals are placed in jobs appropriate
to their abilities and when they are paid fairly. Taylor viewed the questions of how to
match individuals with the job in which they would be most productive and to pro-
vide them with fair incentives as fundamental vocational and social issues (Savickas
et al., 2009) that could be resolved by applying a scientific management approach.
Hence, one of the functions of the new “employment administrators” was developing

3
4 • HRS: Emergence and Types

and applying new testing technologies to rationally select and place employees.
To further reduce worker unrest, personnel directors offered a new approach to
employee relations, one grounded in the use of entitlements to solidify workers’ alle-
giance to their employer. The personnel function became the locus of all activities
having to do with employee relations, and eventually, contract administration.
The scope of these technical activities widened over the decades, with new func-
tions and technologies added with every shift in managerial thought and discourse
(Barley & Kunda, 1992; Francis & Keegan, 2006; Schuler & Jackson, 2007). For exam-
ple, during the height of the human relations movement (1930s–1950s), personnel
directors widened their package of services to include management development (as
a means to develop personal potential) and collective bargaining, industrial due pro-
cess, and labor-management collaboration (as mechanisms to structure and manage
labor conflict). With the upsurge of operations research and systems rationalization
in the 1960s and 1970s, personnel directors offered new technical services in areas
such as work redesign, job evaluation, manpower forecasting and planning, and per-
formance management systems.
However, demands in the 1980s for improvements in both cost efficiency and
quality—a product of increased global competition, expansion of the services sec-
tor, declining trade union density, and movement toward a “knowledge economy”—
placed personnel management at a crossroads (Rucci, 1997; Schuler & Jackson,
2007; Wright, 2008). On the one hand, since its establishment, the personnel func-
tion had based its legitimacy and influence on its ability to buffer an organization’s
core technology from uncertainties stemming from a heterogeneous workforce, an
unstable labor market, and a militant union movement. Yet by the 1980s, managers
had become less concerned with these technical sources of uncertainty and were
paying greater attention to quality, flexibility and agility, and unique competencies
as sources of competitive advantage. Indeed, by the early part of that decade, the
strategic management of human resources and the design of “strong” organizational
cultures had become the focus of attention for a number of extremely influential
management consultants and applied researchers (e.g., Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Ouchi,
1981; Peters & Waterman, 1982). These writers viewed the effective management of
human resources (HR) as a critical source of competitive advantage. For example,
one of Peters and Waterman’s (1982) “Eight Attributes” was “productivity through
people,” which called for viewing human resources rather than capital investment as
the fundamental source of improvements in efficiency—“treating the rank and file
as the root source of quality and productivity gain” (p. 14).
Not surprisingly, by the mid-1980s, an increasing number of HR researchers were
calling for the personnel function to take on more a strategic or business role. The
birth of the strategic approach to HRM—that is, strategic HRM, or SHRM—can
be traced to the foundational conceptual models of the Michigan (e.g., Fombrun,
Tichy, & Devanna, 1984) and Harvard (e.g., Beer, Spector, Lawrence, Mills, & Walton,
1984) schools. According to the Michigan approach, the main HRM objective was
to organize and utilize HRM functions (i.e., selection, appraisal, rewards, and devel-
opment) so as to maximize their impact on organizational performance. According
to the Harvard approach, the key objectives of HRM included aligning the interests
 Introduction • 5

of employees and management to boost organizational effectiveness and individual

and societal well-being. The main distinction between the two approaches had to do
with the point of view being limited to shareholders (Michigan) as opposed to also
including other stakeholders (Harvard) (Legge, 1995).
Over the following decades, research has further contributed to the development
of the strategic view of HRM. Tyson (1987), for example, called for the replacement
of two traditional personnel models, namely the personnel director as the “clerk of
works” (an administrative function responsible for the provision of pay, benefits, and
employee welfare services) and the “contracts manager” (employee relations expert),
with a new, “architect” model. According to this model, personnel would return the
responsibility for people management (e.g., appraisal, individual counseling) back to
line managers and would instead focus on aligning the firm’s human resource system
with its business strategy. Similarly, Wright and McMahan (1992) argued that two
important dimensions distinguish the strategic approach to human resource man-
agement from the more traditional practices of personnel management described
above. First, “it entails the linking of human resource management practices with
the strategic management process of the organization” (Wright & McMahan, 1992,
p. 298). That is, it calls for the consideration of HR issues as part of the formulation
of business strategy. Second, the strategic approach places an emphasis on synergy
(or, at least, congruence) among the various HR practices (internal fit or horizontal
integration), and on ensuring that these practices are aligned with the needs of the
business as a whole and the broader environment within which the organization
functions (external fit or vertical integration).
Becker and Huselid (2006) pithily summarize the difference between strategic
and traditional HRM research in observing that SHRM “focuses on organizational
performance rather than individual performance” (p. 899) and that it “emphasizes
the role of HR management systems as solutions to business problems . . . rather than
individual HR management practices in isolation” (p. 899). These more complex
HRM systems, sometimes referred to as “best practices,” “high performance work
systems,” or “HR bundles,” imply one recipe for successful HR activity that should
lead to positive outcomes for all types of firms. This approach has been challenged
by an alternative HRM model that focuses on more tailored configurations of HR
practices. Referred to as the “contextually contingent” or “best fit” HRM model, this
approach takes account of HR practices suitable for a given type of business under
specific circumstances (Becker & Huselid, 2006; Cappelli & Neumark, 2001).
Mirroring the developments in HRM research described above, the HRM dis-
course over the past 25 years has sought to promote a vision of HR specialists as more
closely aligned with the strategic imperatives of the firm, and accorded status as key
contributors to business strategy through the effective management of its human
capital. More specifically, given that traditional sources of competitive advantage,
such as natural resources, access to financial resources, technology, protected or reg-
ulated markets, and economies of scale have become increasingly easier to imitate
and have thus lost their strategic power, the potential for human capital to provide
sustainable competitive advantage has created a new avenue for HR to become a
strategic partner. The ultimate goal has become to create value for key stakeholders,
6 • HRS: Emergence and Types

including line managers, customers, and investors (Becker & Huselid, 2006; Schuler &
Jackson, 2007; Ulrich & Brockbank, 2005). In short, HR professionals want “a seat at
the table”—that is, membership in their firms’ top executive decision-making teams.
HR’s continuing search for “a seat at the table” involves a vision whereby HR
strategies, systems, and practices are linked to the firm’s financial performance in a
distinctive, inimitable way, with the goal of advancing the firm’s long-term success.
This requires a systems-wide perspective, with the vertical and horizontal integra-
tion described above (based on continuous partnerships between HR professionals
and different stakeholders). It also requires replacing subjective estimates of some
qualitative impact with matrices for measuring the economic value added by HR
activities—that is, their return on investment (e.g., Beatty, Huselid, & Schneier, 2003;
Becker & Huselid, 2006; Fitz-Enz, 2002).

CONCEPTUAL ISSUES
Despite the increased attention paid to strategic human resource management and
HR strategy (HRS) in recent years, researchers have failed to clarify the precise
meaning of these two important concepts—a shortcoming that has complicated
both theory development and testing. Generally speaking, SHRM may be viewed
as encompassing a link between HR strategy and business strategy, with the upshot
being increased organizational effectiveness and success. Indeed, with the most press-
ing theoretical and empirical challenge in the SHRM literature being the need for a
clearer articulation of the “black box” linking HR and firm performance, researchers
have focused on variables associated with strategy implementation capabilities such
as the firm’s ability to attract, develop, and retain required human capital (Becker &
Huselid, 2006; Collins & Clark, 2003; Jiang, Lepak, Hu, & Baer, 2012). In the sec-
tions below, we attempt to clear up some of the confusion with respect to these key
constructs in the SHRM literature.

Business Strategy
Business strategy concerns the long-term direction and goals of a firm and the broad
formula by which that firm attempts to acquire and deploy resources in order to
secure and sustain competitive advantage (Hitt, Ireland, & Hoskisson, 2005; Porter,
1980). Notions of business strategy evolved under the influence of competitive
thinking, which, in turn, was stimulated by such diverse areas as animal and social
behaviors (e.g., game theory) as well as military science (Ghemawat, 2002). This has
led management scholars (Mintzberg, 1990; Quinn, 1988) to define business strategy
in terms of the set of organizational goals business leaders attempt to achieve (i.e.,
ends) and the policies (i.e., means) by which these leaders attempt to position the
firm and its resources in relation to the firm’s environment, competitors, and other
stakeholders in order to maximize the potential for goal attainment.
Most strategy research to date can be placed into one of two branches. The first,
content research, seeks to answer the question of what underpins firms’ competitive
advantage, while the second, process research, concerns how firms’ strategies emerge
 Introduction • 7

over time and lead to desired outcomes (e.g., Barney, 1991; Herrmann, 2005; Mellahi &
Sminia, 2009). More specifically, content or policy research focuses on the link
between a wide variety of structural (e.g., capacity, technology) and infrastructural
(e.g., workforce) parameters and performance, and the ways in which this relation-
ship may be moderated by various environmental contingencies. Much research in
this subfield is grounded in the seminal work of Chandler (1962) and his basic prop-
osition that environmental contingencies (e.g., technological change) shape orga-
nizational strategies, which in turn determine organizational structure. In contrast,
process research examines the formulation and implementation of policies as well as
their dynamics over time and their impact on the firm’s bottom line. Much process
research is grounded in the work of Galbraith and Nathanson (1978), who argued
that the key to implementation is the realignment of core organizational systems
(e.g., finance, marketing, and operations, as well as HRM).
An important development in the field of business strategy in recent years is
the growing emphasis on the concept of strategy dynamics, or the search for the-
ory and practice to help firms balance the conflicting requirements of formulating
strategy for the longer term and to deal with immediate short-term pressures (e.g.,
Segal-Horn, 2004)—what Ghemawat (2002) expressed as “the dynamic question of
how businesses might create and sustain competitive advantage in the presence of
competitors who could not be counted on to remain inert all the time” (p. 64). Accord-
ingly, current efforts in business strategy involve, for example, research on absorp-
tive capacity (Cohen & Leventhal, 1990; Jansen, van den Bosch, & Volberda, 2005),
balancing enterprise competencies in exploration and exploitation (Lavie, Stettner, &
Tushman, 2010), and how to strengthen patterns of innovation and knowledge
acquisition (Herrmann, 2009).

HR Strategy
As Gardner (2002) notes,

strategy, including HR strategy, involves the acquisition, development, and

deployment of resources while anticipating and responding to a large variety of
market forces. Strategy also involves anticipating and responding to the tactics
of direct competitors in an effort to maintain competitive parity and incremen-
tally build competitive advantage.
(p. 225)

Consistent with this view and the traditional strategy literature (Miles & Snow, 1978;
Mintzberg, 1979), we conceptualize HR strategy as the pattern of decisions regard-
ing the policies and practices associated with the HR system, contingent on business
strategy and competitive context (Bamberger & Fiegenbaum, 1996; Gardner, 2005).
Implicit in this definition are two core assumptions. First, we assume that the focus
of attention needs to be on the HR system, not the HR function. The HR system is
one of numerous organizational systems (e.g., the finance system, the marketing sys-
tem), each of which plays a role in the formulation of organization-wide strategies,
8 • HRS: Emergence and Types

and each of which is comprised of function-specific subsystems (Bamberger &

Fiegenbaum, 1996; Becker & Huselid, 2006; Way & Johnson, 2005). In the case of
HR, these subsystems are focused on people flow and development, appraisal and
rewards, and employee relations. While in many organizations the HR function has
primary responsibility for implementing decisions having to do with each of these
subsystems, other functional units may play an important role in making the deci-
sions in the first place, as well as in their implementation.
Second, we assume that it is impossible to understand the nature of HR strategy
without taking both intra-organizational politics and environmental/institutional
contingencies into account (Bamberger & Phillips, 1991; Gardner, 2005; Way &
Johnson, 2005). Consequently, we recognize that there is likely to be a difference
between a firm’s “espoused” or planned HR strategy, and its “emergent” or actual
strategy. This assumption is based on a recognition that strategy at any level and
in any organizational system is rarely if ever the outcome of a rational, explicit,
and top-down process. Thus, the espoused HR strategy is the pattern of HR-related
decisions made, but not necessarily implemented. It is often explicated as part of
“corporate philosophy” or included as a central component of a managerial mis-
sion statement. In contrast, the emergent HR strategy is the pattern of HR-related
decisions that, while perhaps never made explicit, have in fact been applied. This
“strategy in use” is a negotiated order (Strauss et al., 1963), shaped by the political
maneuvering of those interests and institutions likely to be affected by the out-
comes of the strategic decision-making process. Extending this notion to the level
of HR practices, a number of researchers (e.g., Khilji & Wang, 2006; Wright &
Nishii, 2013) have emphasized the need to distinguish between intended HR prac-
tices (those designed on a strategic level), actual HR practices (those implemented
by line managers), and perceived HR practices (those perceived—and often acted
upon—by employees).

Strategic Human Resource Management

We view SHRM as a competency-based approach to the management of human cap-
ital, focused on the development of durable, imperfectly imitable, and nontradable
people resources. Developing resources with such characteristics is the key to sus-
tainable competitive advantage, particularly since, as Gardner (2002) notes, “the key
resource for firms competing in the new economy is no longer land, capital, or hard
assets but the human capital necessary to adapt organizations to global competition
and maximize the benefits associated with the current technological boom” (p. 225).
As an approach to the process of people management in organizations, SHRM is not
unrelated to HR strategy. Indeed, the formulation and enactment of an HR strat-
egy designed to “align HR practices to strategic goals” (Lawler, Ulrich, Fitz-Enz, &
Madden, 2003, p. 25) is a key element of SHRM. Thus, if SHRM is the process by
which organizations seek to link the human, social, and intellectual capital of their
members to the strategic needs of the firm, espoused HR strategy is the roadmap that
organizational leaders use to secure that link, and emergent HR strategy is the road
actually traveled.
 Introduction • 9

THE ROLE OF HR STRATEGY IN STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT:

THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS
That both HR practitioners and researchers have embraced this strategic approach to
human resource management is beyond dispute. However, there is far less consensus
regarding the forces generating this shift in HRM orientation from managing people
(administrative expert) to creating strategic contributions (strategic partner). For
example, from a rational choice perspective, it makes sense for any organizational
function to shift its attention to those activities that are likely to provide the orga-
nization with the greatest possible return. Accordingly, as noted by Lemmergaard
(2009), “HR professionals are subject to vast changes in their need to demonstrate
the added value of the HR function to the organization” (p. 182). However, rather
than emerging as a rational response to shifting environmental contingencies,
several scholars suggest that the shift in HRM orientation may be driven more by
institutional, constituency-based interests. Next, we examine in more detail theories
associated with both perspectives on the emergence of a more strategic approach to
the management of human capital, or in other words, strategic HR management.

Rational Choice Theories

Behavioral role theory. Based on the assumption that employee behaviors are key
to successful strategy implementation, behavioral role theory (Katz & Kahn, 1978)
suggests that by aligning HR policies and practices with firm strategy, employees will
be better able to “meet the expectations of role partners within the organization (i.e.,
supervisors, peers, subordinates), at organizational boundaries (e.g., customers),
and beyond (i.e., family and society)” (Jackson & Schuler, 1999, p. 47). Moreover,
responses to contingency events may be incorporated into different patterns of role
behavior. Accordingly, the role behavior perspective, while primarily focusing on
the need for HR practices to elicit employee behaviors consistent with firm strategy,
has been extended to incorporate employee role requirements dependent on other
situational contingencies, such as characteristics of the industry (Lengnick-Hall,
Lengnick-Hall, Andrade, & Drake, 2009).
Human capital theory. A second theory grounded in a rational choice perspec-
tive, human capital theory (Becker, 1964), suggests that the value of human resources
(the knowledge, skills, and abilities that people bring to organizations), as with any
other type of capital, lies in their ability to contribute to organizational productiv-
ity (Schuler & Jackson, 2005) both directly and indirectly (i.e., by moderating the
relationship between business strategy and firm performance; e.g., Hitt, Bierman,
Shimizu, & Kochhar, 2001). Thus, organizations make strategic decisions about
investing in and managing people just as they make decisions about other economic
assets, such as land or machinery (e.g., Wright, Dunford, & Snell, 2001). One of the
most important decisions in this regard has to do with whether to internally develop
their own human capital or to acquire it from the external labor market—what is
often referred to as the “make or buy” decision (Becker, 2009; Wright et al. 2001).
Importantly, although firms may have access to valuable human capital, “either
10 • HRS: Emergence and Types

through the poor design of work or the mismanagement of people [they] may not
adequately deploy it to achieve strategic impact” (Wright et al., 2001, p. 705).
Transaction cost theory. This theory (Williamson, 1979; 1981) similarly focuses
on the issue of “make or buy,” suggesting that adoption of a strategic approach
to HRM can minimize the costs involved in controlling internal organizational
exchanges. These costs stem from the need to develop adequate controls to avert
situations where employees, “through self-interest or by opportunistic behaviors, fail
to fulfill their obligations” (Tremblay, Côté, & Balkin, 2003, p. 1658). The threat of
opportunism is affected by the characteristics of the transaction, the partner, and the
relationship. Unique strategic approaches to HRM should be adopted to suit firms
with highly developed internal labor markets when the nature of the work process
is such that employee loyalty and/or firm-specific knowledge, skills, and abilities
are highly valued. Such an approach should also facilitate the decision to maximize
efficiencies by competing in the external labor market (enhancing flexibility by pur-
suing shorter relationships with employees) when such firm-specific skills are not
required (Lui & Ngo, 2004; Tremblay et al., 2003).
Resource-based view. Synthesizing the themes highlighted by the behavioral role,
human capital, and transaction cost theories noted above, the resource-based view
(RBV; Barney, 1991; Grant, 2010) suggests that resources that are rare, inimitable,
and nonsubstitutable provide sources of sustainable competitive advantage for the
organization. As such, the RBV shifts the emphasis in strategy away from external
factors (such as industry position) and toward internal firm resources as sources
of competitive advantage, providing a strong basis for the development of a more
strategic approach to HRM (Wright, Dunford, & Snell, 2001). Indeed, according to
some RBV scholars, the greater the rate of change in a firm’s external environment,
the more likely internal resources are to provide a secure foundation for long-term
competitive advantage (Grant, 2010). According to the RBV, people are an impor-
tant resource in this regard because of the two types of capital—human and social—
they can bring to the firm. Human capital (i.e., employees’ knowledge, skills, and
abilities), particularly when organized in groups and networks, provides the firm
with a pool of resources that have the potential (a) to differentiate the firm from its
competitors, (b) to be process-dependent and thus hard to copy, and (c) to be dif-
ficult to replicate or replace (Colbert, 2004; Wright et al., 2001). In addition, social
capital (employees’ connections to and relationships with key stakeholders within
and external to the organization) may similarly provide the employer with a critical
resource that is time-consuming if not impossible to replicate, and often costly to
“buy” in the labor market.
Agency theory. Finally, building on this notion of people as a source of com-
petitive advantage for the firm, agency theory (Eisenhardt, 1989) adopts a ratio-
nal approach to postulating how a strategic approach to HRM may better allow
this resource to generate the maximum return to the firm. Given the uncertain-
ties inherent in monitoring and rewarding employees’ (i.e., agents’) compliance
with the implicit and explicit contracts typical in employment contexts (the “agent
problem”), agency theory proposes that through the strategic alignment of agent
and principal (i.e., employer) interests, employment relations and systems can be
 Introduction • 11

streamlined (Hayton, 2005). Agency theory has been successfully employed with
regard to strategic compensation practices, and—in particular—the widespread
adoption of compensation systems that take into account the need to promote
principal-agent compatibility by tying pay to investments by individuals (i.e., vari-
able or performance-based pay practices; e.g., Tremblay et al., 2003).

Constituency-Based Theories
However, it is just as likely that HR practitioners and researchers have embraced
SHRM out of a constituency-based interest. As Lemmergaard (2009) notes, the HR
function has often been “caught up in administrative routines with little impact
on organizational effectiveness” (p. 191). This has created a vicious circle in many
firms in which only those contributing to performance are accorded high status and
invited to participate in strategic decision making, and in which only those partici-
pating in strategic decision making are able to maximally contribute to firm perfor-
mance (e.g., Wei & Lau, 2005). The adoption of a more strategic approach to HRM
may be viewed by some HR managers as a means of increasing the legitimacy of
HR as a strategic partner within the firm (e.g., Hughes, 2008). Similarly, for SHRM
researchers, empirical analysis of the link between HR practices and firm perfor-
mance may provide an important means to secure greater awareness and respect for
the field of HRM as a whole. Underlying such a constituency-based perspective are
two established organizational theories and a third, related approach.
Institutional theory. The first of the established theories, institutional theory
(DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Meyer & Rowan, 1977), suggests that the adoption of any
new organizational form or practice stems from an organizational interest in gaining
legitimacy and acceptance from key stakeholders as a means to ensure continued
survival. As we will describe in detail in Chapter 2, the adoption of certain HR prac-
tices may stem from coercive pressures exerted by the state (e.g., Equal Employment
Opportunity requirements), normative pressures exerted by the HR profession or
the investment community, or the mimetic pressures driving organizational leaders
to follow managerial fads and adopt the HR practices of other firms as a way of cop-
ing with uncertainty.
Resource dependence theory. The second established theory, resource depen-
dence theory (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978), is grounded in the notion that organiza-
tions and organizational interests gain power over one another by securing scarce
resources and controlling the resources that their constituents are dependent upon.
Since dependence is the basis of power (Bacharach & Lawler, 1980), those respon-
sible for the human resource system may increase their level of influence in the orga-
nization by (a) enhancing the perceived value of human resources (relative to that of
other key production resources) to key organizational interests and (b) making other
organizational interests dependent on them for ensuring the efficient and timely
acquisition, deployment, and development of human resources. A strategic approach
to HRM may offer the potential to do both and may therefore be particularly appeal-
ing to those HR practitioners looking to gain greater influence in organizational
affairs (e.g., in terms of budget allocations; Wei & Lau, 2005).
12 • HRS: Emergence and Types

Multiple constituency/multiple stakeholder approach. Relatedly, the multiple

constituency/multiple stakeholder approach recognizes the dynamic and multi-
dimensional as well as multilevel nature of the strategic management process
(Freeman & McVea, 2001). This approach is rooted in systems theory (Ackoff, 1970;
Buckley, 1967), which emphasizes that organizations are open systems requiring the
support of various stakeholders, both external (e.g., regulatory agencies) and internal
(e.g., line managers), to address relevant issues and problems (e.g., Arthur & Boyles,
2007; Kepes & Delery, 2006). The goals and objectives of stakeholders, along with
power relationships among them, influence organizational goals and objectives, as
well as the strategies pursued by the organization—and, thus, the measures of effec-
tiveness that should be used to evaluate the impact of SHRM (Colakoglu, Lepak, &
Hong, 2006). Systematic agreement theory, for example, provides a framework in
which organizational alignment—the degree to which an organization’s design, strat-
egies, and culture cooperate to achieve desired goals—is proposed to enhance orga-
nizational effectiveness and create competitive advantage (Way & Johnson, 2005).
In sum, whereas rational choice theories attribute the emergence of a more
strategic approach to people management to the notion that human and social capi-
tal, when managed strategically, can generate a sustainable source of “rent” for the
firm, constituency-based theories suggest that to better understand the emergence
of SHRM one must take into account the need for legitimacy on the part of organiza-
tions and those managing them, as well as the political interests of the latter.

ISSUES OF CONCERN IN THE STUDY OF HR STRATEGY

Over the past decade, three main issues have dominated the discourse in the SHRM
literature. The first issue concerns the adoption and implementation of HR strate-
gies. Of interest is not only how an HR strategy may be most effectively formulated,
but also what organizational or environmental characteristics predict the adoption
of specific strategic HR practices. Additionally, given that “the ability to implement
strategies is, by itself, a resource that can be a source of competitive advantage”
(Barney, 2001, p. 54), scholars have included the issue of strategy implementation
in their examination of this question (Becker & Huselid, 2006). Particular attention
has been paid to distinguishing between intended, implemented, and perceived HR
practices (e.g., Khilji & Wang, 2006; Nishii, Lepak, & Schneider, 2008). As noted by
Guest (2011), such a distinction allows for “a shift from studying the presence of HR
practices to how well they are applied, and by implication, a shift in focus from HR
managers to line managers” (p. 9).
The second issue concerns the content of HR strategy, and in particular, the poli-
cies and practices comprising different HR strategies. What are the main dimensions
along which HR strategies vary, and how does this variance manifest itself in terms of
specific HR policies and practices? Are there differentiated categories of staff within
the firm that need distinct sets of HR policies and practices? A related topic involves
the search for a more balanced HR agenda, one that addresses both human and eco-
nomic concerns. As several authors note, while HR professionals continue on their
journey to be business partners, they also need to rediscover their role as guardians
 Introduction • 13

of the organization’s people and values (e.g., Francis & Keegan, 2006; Wright & Snell,
2005). How can these potentially conflicting challenges be integrated? Thus, from
a strategic perspective, HR also needs to give serious consideration to such ethical
matters as the people side of corporate mismanagement and fraud, the exploitation
of offshore and/or contingent workers, and the application of genetic screening in
employment (e.g., Greenwood, 2012; Lefkowitz, 2006).
Finally, SHRM researchers have perhaps paid the most attention to the conse-
quences of HR strategy, and in particular, the impact on firm performance of various
policies, practices, and strategic configurations thereof—that is, “black box” ques-
tions such as “Does HR strategy make a difference?” and “What are the most impor-
tant variables linking HR strategy to unit or firm performance?” This emphasis on
the HRM value proposition has, of course, heightened the saliency of measurement
(e.g., Gerhart, Wright, McMahan, & Snell, 2006), with such intriguing questions as
how to measure program adoption or practice application, and which measures of
performance to use. Furthermore, notwithstanding the debate over contribution and
measurement, critics have highlighted the marked difference between the rhetoric
and the reality of SHRM (Farndale & Brewster, 2005; Kanter, 2003). Kochan’s posi-
tion that “the two-decade effort to develop a new ‘strategic human resource man-
agement’ role in organizations has failed to realize its promised potential of greater
status, influence, and achievement” (2007, p. 599) explicitly reflects such concerns.
Our objective in this book is to review the research on all three of these issues,
critically evaluating and, where possible, extending management theory. Our intent
is not to examine each of HRM’s core technologies (e.g., recruitment or develop-
ment) from a strategic perspective. Nor is it to provide a review of the latest research
on specific HR practices. Rather, our purpose in this book is to examine whether,
how, and when human resources may serve to augment the strategic capability of the
firm, and how a firm’s HR system can strengthen the link between human resources
and firm performance. As such, we take a macro view of HRM and focus our atten-
tion on the firm’s overall HR system rather than the activities of its HR function. Our
intent is not simply to summarize and evaluate the findings of HR strategy research
for students of HR and HR researchers. Rather, it is to provide some new insights
into the link between human resources and the competitive activity of organizations;
insights that should be meaningful to students and researchers of organizational the-
ory, strategy, and human resource management.

PLAN OF THE BOOK

The book consists of three parts. Part I begins with a focus on the emergence and
formulation of HR strategy (Chapter 2). Drawing on many of the themes and theo-
retical perspectives noted above, we will discuss factors explaining variance in HR
strategy adoption across firms. We will also contrast a number of normative models
offered by HR practitioners with the descriptive models proposed by HR researchers
to explain within-firm variance in HR strategy formulation. Finally, we will examine
the link between firm-wide strategy and HR strategy and the degree to which the
latter is actually implemented and enacted.
14 • HRS: Emergence and Types

In Chapter 3, we examine the various types and models of HR strategies proposed

in the literature. Although researchers have proposed a number of strategic typolo-
gies, many of these are, at their core, quite similar. Nearly all differentiate among HR
strategies on the basis of the organizational approach either to resource acquisition
and retention (i.e., external vs. internal orientation) or to system control (i.e., a focus
on process vs. output). Viewing these two characteristics as orthogonal dimensions
of HR strategy, we identify and describe four dominant or core HR strategies: (a) a
commitment strategy (internal, output oriented); (b) a free-agent strategy (external,
output oriented); (c) a paternalistic strategy (internal, process oriented); and (d) a
secondary strategy (external, process oriented).
Viewing an organization’s HR system as itself comprised of interrelated subsys-
tems that are “designed to attract, develop and maintain a firm’s human resources”
(Duarte & Martins, 2012, p. 466), in the second part of the book (Chapters 4
through 7), we will examine subsystem-specific strategies and the “bundles” of HR
policies and practices associated with them. Our focus will be on four basic HR sub-
systems, namely people flow, performance management, rewards (i.e., compensation
and benefits), and employee relations. Much of our discussion in these chapters will
be based on the four-part typology of HR strategies described in Chapter 3. Adopting
a means-ends approach to our analysis, in each chapter we will review the various
strategic objectives a firm might adopt for a subsystem given its dominant HR strat-
egy (i.e., commitment, free-agent, paternalistic, or secondary). We will then review
the various policies and practices (i.e., means) that, in the context of each dominant
strategy, are typically used to achieve subsystem ends.
More specifically, in Chapter 4, we will focus on the people-flow subsystem, its
objectives of human resource composition and competence, and such HR practices
as planning; recruitment and selection; organizational entry; career development
and internal labor market structuring; training, and development; downsizing; and
retirement. We will then show how, according to the literature, the ends and means
of so-called talent management are likely to vary across the four strategic models.
Using a similar analytical approach, Chapters 5 and 6 will focus on the perfor-
mance management and rewards subsystems, respectively. Specifically, Chapter 5
will revolve around performance management, examining such issues as job analy-
sis, performance appraisal approaches and dilemmas, and performance feedback.
Particular attention will be paid to performance management as a reflective learn-
ing process, and we will highlight recent research on more informal mechanisms of
peer regulation as an alternative to more traditional, supervisor-driven modes of
appraisal and feedback. In Chapter 6, we discuss compensation strategy, with such
issues as pay structure and administration (e.g., pay system transparency) and the
use of individual and/or group-based pay-for-performance. Again, we will examine
differences in evaluation and compensation ends and means across all four domi-
nant strategic types.
In Chapter 7, we will examine what we refer to as the employee relations sub-
system. We view the establishment and reinforcement of the psychological contract
between employer and employee as the primary objective of this subsystem, and such
functions as job design, employee engagement, employee assistance, and dispute
 Introduction • 15

resolution as the primary means used to achieve this objective. After reviewing new
employment relations strategies and how these may relate to each of the four generic
HR strategies, we will review the literature on a number of “best practices” in this
realm, including team-based work structures, employee participation and involve-
ment, work/family programs (e.g., flextime, work-family crossover), and alternative
dispute resolution systems. We will also discuss recent research on what unions do
for workers, employers, and economies in general.
In the third part of the book, we examine whether and how HR strategy affects
a variety of outcomes at the firm level, as well as some of the challenges that future
HR strategies need to address, particularly those having to do with a more diverse
and geographically distributed workforce. More specifically, in Chapter 8, we will
review and evaluate the research on HR strategy’s impact on firm performance. First
we will evaluate the research exploring the impact of HR strategy on a variety of
new criteria that go beyond such traditional criteria as turnover and short-term task
performance (e.g., learning and competency development), the use of metrics as the
basis for managing people as strategic assets, and the importance of risk assessment
in HR. Second, the chapter will integrate new research on the mechanisms under-
lying the impact of HR strategy on performance outcomes (i.e., the “black box”).
Third, we will discuss several of the key theoretical and operational challenges (e.g.,
construct measurement) facing researchers in this area, as well as the implications of
this research with regard to the analysis and application of strategic HR logics. In the
concluding section of this chapter we will integrate multilevel research on the influ-
ence of HR strategy on individuals, groups, firms, and societies (e.g., social classes,
subcontracting).
In Chapter 9, after reviewing the literature on diversity and its implications for
individual, unit, and firm performance, we will discuss how diversity concerns may
shape HR strategies in the acquisition, development, deployment, and retention
of human capital. Beyond the usual focus on gender and ethnic diversity, a strong
emphasis will be placed on HR strategies aimed at smoothing intergenerational dif-
ferences and ensuring the retention of aging talent.
Chapter 10 expands our discussion of how a more diverse workforce poses
unique challenges to those responsible for developing and implementing HR strat-
egy, this time by focusing on the diversity generated by globalization. Accordingly,
in this chapter, we will review research on how multinational companies (MNCs)
adapt their HR architecture to meet the demands of globalization while remaining
responsive to culture-specific requirements. More specifically, we will examine the
impact that globalization may have on each of the four subsystems noted above,
namely staffing, performance management, compensation, and employee relations.
A strong emphasis will be placed on global work systems and cross-national, vir-
tual teams, global talent management, and the management of expatriates, as well as
cross-national pay differentials in the context of global compensation.
The last chapter (Chapter 11) builds on the theoretical discussion in Chapter 9,
reviewing recent research on the emergence and unique nature of HR policies and
practices in four emerging economies, namely Brazil, Russia, India, and China
(the so-called BRIC countries). For each country, our invited authors examine the
16 • HRS: Emergence and Types

historical forces that have shaped contemporary HR strategies adopted by enterprises

operating in their respective economies, characterize the nature of these strategies,
and discuss the challenges facing HR as their respective economies continue to grow.
In reviewing these four mini-chapters, we will discuss (a) the practical, long-term
implications of their findings for global HR strategy in general, and (b) what these
context-specific trends might suggest for our understanding of the emergence and
development of HR strategies more generally.
 THE ADOPTION, FORMULATION, AND
2
IMPLEMENTATION OF HUMAN RESOURCE
STRATEGIES

In Chapter 1, we suggested that a primary area of HR strategy research concerns

the adoption, formulation, and implementation of HR strategy. As we noted in that
chapter, of interest is not only which organizations are most likely to adopt strategic
innovations in HRM, but also how HR strategies tend to be (and might best be)
formulated and successfully implemented. In this chapter, we will examine these
issues. First, we will review studies that seek to explain both the adoption of specific
HR practices as well as the adoption of an overall approach to managing people in
the firm (i.e., HR strategy), all on the assumption that HR activities are most effec-
tive when tightly aligned with strategic business or organizational objectives. Studies
focusing on the adoption of specific HR strategies attempt to answer such questions
as the following:

• What explains the adoption of different clusters of HR practices? To what

degree is the adoption of such practices a function of managerial ideology, as
opposed to organizational structure, institutional pressures, market forces, or
some combination of these factors?
• What factors determine the degree to which the adopted policies and practices
comprising the HR strategy are internally consistent in addition to/as opposed
to externally aligned with business strategy?

We will then turn our attention to normative and descriptive research regarding
the formulation of HR strategy. The former attempts to identify “ideal” or theoretical
strategy formulation processes, whereas the latter focuses on identifying the actual
processes that are in fact used by organizations when formulating HR strategy. As
a whole, these studies address such questions as the following: To what degree is
the strategy formulation process affected by internal politics as well as conditions
in the organizational environment? What is the nature of the relationship between

17
18 • HRS: Emergence and Types

overall firm strategy and HR strategy, and which serves as an input to the other in
the strategy formulation process? One of the primary concerns in this section will be
to contrast two different perspectives regarding the HR strategy formulation process:
rational planning versus incremental emergence. This section will conclude with a
discussion of ways to resolve the differences between these two perspectives.
The last part of this chapter will focus on the implementation of HR strategy.
Recent research suggests a growing interest in strategy implementation as a focal
mediating construct linking HR strategy to firm performance. As Barney (2001) has
noted, such an approach is in contrast to the traditional assumption that “imple-
mentation follows, almost automatically” (p. 53). Accordingly, we will discuss the
difference between a firm’s espoused or intended HR strategy, its emergent or actual
strategy, and the HR practices perceived and enacted upon by target groups. Poten-
tial barriers as well as factors contributing to successful strategy implementation will
be discussed.

ADOPTION OF HR STRATEGIES: FACTORS PREDICTING

DIFFERENCES IN THE ADOPTION OF SPECIFIC HR
STRATEGIES AND PRACTICES ACROSS FIRMS
As we saw in Chapter 1, the history of HRM is one of continuous innovation and
adaptation. In each phase of its development, the field has successfully developed
and introduced new techniques, practices, and roles designed to help it respond
to emergent sources of organizational uncertainty (Lengnick-Hall, Lengnick-Hall,
Andrade, & Drake , 2009; Schuler & Jackson, 2005). Thus, for example, sophisticated
manpower planning methods were put forward in the 1950s, a time when systems
optimization was viewed as a key source of competitive advantage and when insti-
tutional shifts in the realm of industrial relations placed new constraints on manag-
ers’ ability to respond to changes in market conditions by simply adjusting human
resource deployments (Greer, Jackson, & Fiorito, 1989; Verhoeven, 1982). Simi-
larly, since the mid-1980s, market deregulation, advanced information systems, and
process reengineering have intensified competition in the services industries (e.g.,
banking, airlines, and telecommunications). In response, many service businesses
have introduced HR practices such as contingent compensation, job redesign, and
360-degree feedback in an effort to develop a more engaged and service-oriented
workforce as a source of competitive advantage. However, questions remain as to
the conditions under which such HR innovations are most appropriate, and in what
types of organizations (Batt, 2002; Chuang & Liao, 2010).
A number of HR researchers have attempted to identify those factors associated
with the adoption of a given HR strategy, or at least the adoption of particular HR
practices (e.g., Akingbola, 2013; Florkowski & Olivas-Luja’n, 2006; Johns, 1993;
Kossek, 1987; Selden, 2003; Som, 2007; Wei & Lau, 2008). Studies examining this
issue have suggested a number of broad factors likely to account for much of the vari-
ance in the HR policies and practices adopted across organizations. Table 2.1 shows
some of these factors. It is to these that we turn next, using the lens of rational choice
and constituency-based theories described in Chapter 1.
 Adoption, Formulation, & Implementation • 19

Table 2.1 Factors Potentially Associated with the Adoption and Formulation of an HR Strategy
Approach Sample Factors
Rational choice Market orientation (external fit)
(External, market-based factors) Sector/industry
Globalization
National culture
Technology
Structural organizational characteristics (e.g., size, slack,
complexity, ownership)
Constituency—Institutional “Best practices”
(External, nonmarket factors) Professional norms
Legislative and regulatory requirements (e.g.,
unionization)
Labor market
Constituency—Resource dependence Political interests
(Internal factors) Fit of HR system (internal fit)

Rational Choice Approach

The first set of factors has to do with external, environmental, and market-based
forces. Scholars emphasizing these factors adopt what has been called a rational or
strategic choice perspective. Underlying this perspective is the notion that the adop-
tion of particular HR policies and practices is shaped by the firm’s competitive strat-
egy and is thus largely influenced by the organization’s product/service market or
economic context. We will consider a few of these factors here.
Market orientation. A market orientation offers an overarching philosophy in
guiding business actions, with organizational leaders using information generated
from the marketplace to develop strategic plans. A market orientation often leads
firms to seek strategy-compatible HRM practices aimed at promoting customer-
oriented employee behaviors (Jaworski & Kohli, 1993; Narver & Slater, 1990). At the
same time, less market-oriented firms are less likely to adopt market-driven strategies
and thus less likely to tailor HRM practices to facilitate the attainment of strategic
goals. For example, in China, due to uneven economic development and enterprise
reform, some state-owned firms may be less market driven than others. Those less
market oriented tend to have less of an incentive to adopt more innovative, market-
focused HR policies and practices than the latter, assuming, like many monopolies,
that they can simply pass the cost of less efficient operations on to the consumer (e.g.,
Ferner, Almond, & Colling, 2005; Liu, Luo, & Shi, 2003; Wei & Lau, 2007, 2008).
The adoption of strategy-compatible HRM practices reflects the notion of exter-
nal fit, which posits that there should be consistency between the values and aims
guiding the firm’s system of HRM practices and its overall competitive strategy
(Baird & Meshoulam, 1988; Colbert, 2004; Osterman, 1995). For example, to sup-
port a strategy aimed at controlling and minimizing expenses, the HR system may
place a premium on such practices as standardized work processes, flexible employee
20 • HRS: Emergence and Types

deployments, limited employee autonomy and discretion, and close supervision

(Huang, 2001; Liao, 2005).
Sector/industry factors. Differences among sectors and industries (e.g., public/
private; for-profit/ nonprofit; production/service; high-tech/low-tech; health care/
education/finance) have been cited as possible determinants of HR practices (Som,
2007). Sector or industry characteristics influence HR decisions by providing the
context within which “meanings are construed, effectiveness is defined, and behav-
iours are evaluated” (Jackson & Schuler, 1995, p. 252). For example, relative to private
organizations, public organizations have traditionally been characterized by more
standardized HRM practices, mainly due to their heavier reliance on bureaucracy
and red tape, greater power distance between management and employees, and
larger union presence (Freeman & Medoff, 1985; Som, 2007). Yet the traditional
demarcation between public and private organizations may be shrinking, as a cost-
conscious public sector increasingly borrows tools and practices from their private
counterparts. A number of authors have observed a shift in the public sector toward
the HRM practices adopted by private firms (e.g., Budhwar & Boyne, 2004; da Costa
Carvalho, Camões, Jorge, & Fernandes, 2007), with—to cite one example—some
public organizations linking salary and career prospects to employee performance
(Boyne, Jenkins, & Poole, 1999). Indeed, public organizations often aspire to be
“model employers” that set standards for private organizations to follow, for example,
in areas such as employee training and development (Barnett & Krepcio, 2011).
The health care sector offers an additional example of sector-/industry-specific
pressures affecting the adoption of HR strategies. This sector heavily relies on labor-
intensive technologies and a highly skilled professional workforce that is, at least in
part, internally motivated—i.e., driven by social and moral obligations (Bartram,
Stanton, Leggat, Casimir, & Fraser, 2007). Recent research demonstrates that HR
practices in health care that directly support quality- and service-oriented organi-
zational goals are increasingly linked to improved health care delivery (e.g., Leg-
gat & Dwyer, 2005). Thus, for example, practices designed to promote employee
empowerment, teamwork, and ongoing professional development may help increase
commitment levels and reduce the chronic high rates of turnover currently found
among certain types of health professionals (Adinolfi, 2003; Gowen, McFadden, &
Tallon, 2006).
Globalization. Globalization is another important catalyst for the adoption of
innovative new business practices, including HR practices and strategies (Hendry,
1996; Khavul, Benson, & Datta, 2010; Som, 2007). Globalization is the process by
which culturally unique practices—including practices relevant to HRM—are dif-
fused across cultures through trade (Zeynep, 2005), joint ventures (Yan, 2003),
mergers and acquisitions (Nikandrou & Papalexandris, 2007), and multinational
operations (Ferner, Quintanilla, & Varul, 2001). Other ways in which globalization
provides learning opportunities include international networks with other firms
(Inkpen & Tsang, 2005; Yan, 2003) and the employment of expatriates (Hocking,
Brown, & Harzing, 2004; Rowley & Warner, 2007; Vance & Paik, 2005). Thus, global-
ization has facilitated the convergence of HR policies and practices across different
national and cultural settings (Katz & Darbishire, 2000).
 Adoption, Formulation, & Implementation • 21

National culture. A counterweight to globalization is the continuing influence

exerted by national cultures. In recent years, a number of research projects—including
large-scale studies based on the Cranet network (Brewster, Mayrhofer, & Morley,
2004) and the GLOBE project (House & Javidan, 2004), as well as other, individual
comparative studies (e.g., Aycan et al., 2000; Huo, Huang, & Napier, 2002)—have
examined cross-cultural differences in approaches to HRM in dozens of countries.
Several of these studies have documented differences in approaches to HRM, includ-
ing the types of HR strategy adopted, which may be attributable to cultural variation
in such dimensions as power distance, future orientation, and individualism/
collectivism (Aycan et al., 2000; Gooderham & Nordhaug, 2011; Papalexandris & Pan-
ayotopoulou, 2004). For example, enterprises nested in cultures characterized by high
power distance were found to be less likely to adopt multi-source systems of perfor-
mance evaluation (Fletcher & Perry, 2001; Papalexandris & Panayotopoulou, 2004).
Technology. Aside from sectorial, national, and cultural influences on HR strate-
gies, organizational technology has been and continues to be a powerful predictor
of the HR policies and practices adopted by organizations. In organizational theory,
technology refers to the way in which labor inputs are transformed into outputs—
that is, the way in which tasks are organized and coordinated (and not merely what
kinds of machines—if any—are used). In general, theory suggests that the adoption of
innovative HR practices is likely to be most prevalent in firms where the technology
(a) requires individual skills that are firm specific; (b) makes it difficult to monitor
and control the transformation process; (c) demands a high degree of worker inter-
dependence and cooperation; and (d) results in a high degree of role and task ambi-
guity (Baron & Kreps, 1999; Som, 2007). Such technologies tend to be less prevalent
in traditional, mass production organizations (e.g., auto manufacturing), and much
more prevalent in high-tech firms (e.g., software development). Relatedly, Lengnick-
Hall and Moritz (2003) found that increased access to information (via advanced IT
systems) made employees privy to information that was once only a managerial pre-
rogative, with ramifications for power relations and task environments that encour-
aged the adoption of innovative, high-performance employment practices. These
examples suggest that, with the pervasive presence of sophisticated technology, the
administrative aspects of HR management are becoming de-emphasized (and even,
in some cases, outsourced), while the role of HR as a strategic partner is gaining
increasing recognition.
Organizational characteristics. Structural characteristics of the organization,
such as slack, size, complexity, and ownership, are also posited to be predictive of the
adoption of alternative HR strategies. A number of studies suggest that the presence
of slack resources may increase the financial support available to back the adop-
tion and maintenance of various HR policies and practices and, consequently, may
promote innovative HRM practices (Othman & Poon, 2000; Patel & Cardon, 2010).
These may include more training and development opportunities, more extensive
selection systems, or the introduction of teams, quality circles, and other forms of
empowerment activities (Wright & Haggerty, 2005).
With respect to size of the organization, the bulk of the evidence suggests that larger
firms in a particular industry tend to be the first to adopt innovative HR practices,
22 • HRS: Emergence and Types

with smaller firms eventually copying them. Storey (2004) and Aycan (2007) found
that the larger the company, the higher the level of investment in training and devel-
opment activities. Several studies found that large firms were more likely to use
performance-based rewards such as variable pay, performance bonuses, and stock
options (Ryan & Wiggins, 2001; Som, 2007). More generally, there is evidence that
HR strategy in small firms tends to be informal. Cardon and Stevens (2004) suggest
that compensation practices in small businesses are often ad hoc and uncoordinated,
which “may complicate their consistent implementation and impact on worker
behavior” (p. 307). Similarly, Gilbert and Jones (2000) and Aycan (2005) found that
performance appraisal practices in small firms tend to be informal and continuous
and are often used for monitoring and control rather than development purposes.
A number of explanations have been offered for these differences. Kossek (1987)
points to the tendency of HR staff in smaller firms to perform diverse job functions
and “to have less time to keep abreast of the latest techniques” (p. 81). Johns (1993,
p. 581) highlights two characteristics of larger organizations: their complex struc-
tures, which require more administrative fine tuning than those of smaller firms;
and their greater visibility, which makes them susceptible to legislative and political
pressure (including pressure to adopt certain HR practices). Storey (2004) offers a
financial explanation, suggesting that the cost of adopting and implementing HR
practices may be within reach only of larger firms, which can benefit from econo-
mies of scale. Finally, Mayson and Barrett (2006) suggest that what seems to be a
less strategic approach to HRM in small firms may actually be “a result of how we
are looking for the practices” (p. 451). Along these lines, the open systems approach
advocated by Harney and Dundon (2006) may offer a better understanding of why
certain practices emerge as they do. They argue that the embeddedness of small
firms in their wider environment needs to be taken into account. For example, they
point out that in some contexts, informal HRM practices (e.g., informal recruitment
practices that rely on the desire for “fit” of new recruits into small work groups) may
give small firms an important basis of competitive advantage.
In addition to their research on organizational size and HR practices, Jackson
et al. (1989) examined the impact of horizontal differentiation (as one dimension
of organizational complexity) on the adoption of HR strategy. Among other things,
they found that contingent pay (i.e., bonuses based on productivity) was more preva-
lent in product-based organizations, while functional organizations placed greater
emphasis on employee training and development. More recent studies on HRM sys-
tems in multinational corporations (MNCs) suggest that growth in organizational
complexity is driving HRM systems in these companies to become more innovative.
More specifically, research has focused on how the heightened complexity of MNCs
demands new approaches to integration, coordination, and control, often by cross-
cultural management teams—with the implication for HR being an increased empha-
sis on professionalism, skills development, accountability, and flexibility (Harvey &
Novecevic, 2002; Som, 2007). This may have implications for both initial employee
selection (e.g., an emphasis on cultural adaptability; Tadmor, Tetlock, & Peng, 2009)
and the structuring of intra-organizational careers (e.g., greater emphasis on job
rotation; Edwards, 2004).
 Adoption, Formulation, & Implementation • 23

Patterns of corporate ownership and governance may also influence the emer-
gence of alternative HR strategies. As noted by Zhu, Collins, Webber, and Benson
(2008), “different ownership forms may lead to diverse organizational structures,
policies, and relationships with internal and external stakeholders. In turn, these
differences may affect the form of management of an enterprise’s workforce (HR
practices)” (p. 158). Studies have examined differences between predominantly
state-owned firms, multiple ownership companies, multinational companies (e.g.,
foreign-owned/foreign-invested companies), joint ventures, and privately owned
firms. For example, in their study of HR practices in Ireland, Geary and Roche (2001)
point to the predominance of “country-of-origin effects” over “host country effects,”
noting that foreign firms are not required to submit to local practices regarding trade
unions and collective bargaining.
Labor market threats. Last, threats stemming from the labor market may also
influence the adoption of an HR strategy. Labor markets in the West are increasingly
shrinking due to unprecedented demographic shifts, whereby a significant decline
in birth rates and an increasing number of young workers delaying work with higher
education are accompanied by the retirement of the largest cohort of the world’s
workforce—the baby boomers (e.g., Burke & Ng, 2006). These trends have forced
organizations to develop a long-term orientation toward labor (given that employees
are increasingly more difficult to replace) even as they seek the flexibility demanded
by shareholders. In order to succeed in the war for talent, companies realize they
need to brand themselves as employers of choice by creating a work environment that
workers find attractive. This may have implications for the adoption of HR practices
and strategies. For example, many organizations need to develop aging-friendly HR
policies in order to retain retirement-eligible workers (e.g., Bamberger & Bacharach,
2014; Wang, 2007).

Constituency-Based Approach
The second set of factors draws from the constituency-based approach, and involves
nonmarket environmental factors as well as internal factors.
Nonmarket institutional forces. Scholars focusing on the role of nonmarket
environmental factors typically examine the adoption of alternative HR policies and
practices from an institutional perspective. Institutional theory posits that enter-
prises, like any organizations, are social entities seeking legitimacy and approval
for their performance (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Accordingly, they may use HR
policies and practices as a means to gain the legitimacy and acceptance needed to
ensure access to critical resources from potential exchange partners (e.g., employees,
trade unions, governments, shareholders, financial institutions) (Farndale, Brews-
ter, & Poutsma, 2008; Jackson & Schuler, 1999; Paauwe & Boselie, 2003). In par-
ticular, firms are subject to three sets of forces—namely mimetic, normative, and
coercive—which motivate managers to adopt those policies and practices deemed to
be legitimate in the eyes of influential stakeholders (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Such
forces may play an important role in driving convergence in HR policy and practice
across firms (Budhwar & Sparrow, 2002).
24 • HRS: Emergence and Types

Mimetic mechanisms refer to the benchmarking and imitation of strategies

and practices used by successful firms as a result of uncertainty or management
fads. These homogenizing pressures arise when key interests perceive a given set
of strategies, decisions, and practices as highly beneficial or even optimal—that
is, as “best practices” (Kostova & Roth, 2002). Indeed, imitation may be viewed as
a low-risk, efficient means to acquire legitimacy (Guler, Guillen, & Macpherson,
2002). The adoption of many HR practices, from multi-source feedback to gra-
phology, may thus be based more on the tendency to imitate (particularly under
conditions of high uncertainty) than on rational or strategic considerations. Still,
although imitation is more likely to occur with respect to HR practices that are
more easily communicated, divisible, and marketed by consultants, as Boselie,
Paauwe, and Richardson (2003) suggest, it may be “difficult to determine whether
the implementation of a certain practice or policy is the result of pure blind
imitation” (p. 1413).
Normative mechanisms include professional standards and recognized protocols
developed and promoted by professional bodies and employers’ associations. Over
time, as certain HR practices become institutionalized and recognized as occupa-
tional standards, those responsible for the HR system are likely to develop a personal
interest in adopting these practices in order to retain their own level of individual
legitimacy with respect to their professional colleagues (Spell & Blum, 2005). The
increasing interest of HR managers in securing some form of professional certifi-
cation attests to the importance of such credentialing as a normative mechanism
driving standard practice. The rising use of social networking as a basis for bench-
marking may intensify the role of normative forces in driving the adoption of stan-
dard practice (Sanchez, Kraus, White, & Williams, 1999; Som, 2007).
Coercive mechanisms arise from trade unions, works councils, employment leg-
islation (such as minimal employment standards and equal employment opportu-
nity laws), and government regulation. HR practices can also reflect the need for
foreign-invested enterprises (e.g., MNCs and joint ventures) to meet standards asso-
ciated with doing business in other countries (Zhu et al., 2008). In addition, given the
embeddedness of institutional interests in the governance of state-owned enterprises
in emerging and developed countries alike, these firms tend to be characterized by
more traditional, paternalistic HR practices relative to private firms, reflecting both
institutional inertia and the ability of these firms (in many cases) to pass on the addi-
tional expense of operating under such conditions directly to their customer (e.g.,
Wei & Lau, 2008).
Relatedly, there is reason to believe that labor regulations and unionization may be
associated with the adoption of certain HR practices, although the literature examin-
ing this link is somewhat inconclusive. On the one hand, several studies suggest that
unionized workplaces tend to demonstrate greater use of HR practices such as bonus
payments and internal transfers, as well as other practices designed to improve the
quality of work life (Frenkel & Kuruvilla, 2002; Ng & Maki, 1994). On the other hand,
studies suggest that the presence of an active labor union in companies restricts the
ability of HR managers to innovate. For example, Ramaswamy and Schiphorst (2000)
and McCourt and Ramgutty-Wong (2003), studying the role of labor institutions in
 Adoption, Formulation, & Implementation • 25

India and Mauritius, respectively, concluded that resistance from unions in those
countries acts as a barrier to the adoption and diffusion of new practices (e.g., con-
tingent pay), as any proposed change is subject to approval by union leaders. At the
same time, nonunion firms may be quick to adopt HR practices and policies deemed
strategic, such as variable pay and job enrichment, as a way of attracting the best tal-
ent and maintaining their nonunion status (Gardner, 2005) or avoiding labor unrest
(Collings, Gunnigle, & Morley, 2008).
While the decline of organized labor in some countries may make unioniza-
tion a less robust predictor of HR policies and practices than in the past, in those
countries in which unions remain or are emerging as a powerful force, their role
in shaping the HR strategies of even nonunion firms may be anything but waning
(Som, 2007; Wächter & Müller-Camen, 2002). Then again, regardless of the status
of labor regulations in specific countries, a number of researchers suggest that the
general decline in union density (the proportion of the workforce covered by collec-
tive agreements or members of unions) worldwide is likely to reduce the influence
of trade unions on HRM practices (Som, 2007; Venkata Ratnam, 1998; Wächter &
Müller-Camen, 2002).
Resource-dependence-based factors. As noted above, other constituency-based
factors are internal in nature. Scholars studying these factors often use the lens
of resource dependence theory. From a resource dependence perspective, intra-
organizational political interests likely play a central role in explaining variance in
the adoption of particular HR policies and practices across firms. More specifically,
according to resource dependence theory (and its associated multiple stakeholder
perspective; see Chapter 1 for a description of both perspectives), the possession of
resources affects the distribution of power in enterprises. Because human capital is
typically valued in firms, HR policies and practices can often reflect the nature of
this power distribution (Jackson & Schuler, 1999). As such, the rules and frame-
works governing how human capital is acquired, developed, deployed, and retained
are subject to negotiation, and the policies and practices emerging from such nego-
tiation are what Bucher and Strauss (1961) refer to as a “negotiated order.” From this
perspective, while different parties may try to legitimize their positions regarding
HR policies and practices on the basis of the interests of the firm, those that ulti-
mately emerge and are enacted likely reflect intra-organizational power distribu-
tions and the strength of various organizational interests as much as anything else.
Johns (1993) gives a nice example of how negotiated orders underlie executive com-
pensation practices in many firms. He argues that although technical merit would
suggest the use of longer-term performance measures as the criteria against which
to base executive bonuses, most firms in North America tend to base their executive
compensation programs on short-term criteria such as earnings per share. Underly-
ing this paradox is the fact that decisions regarding executive pay are typically made
by the board of directors in conjunction with other parties involved in dependence
relationships with precisely those individuals likely to be affected by their decisions
(Conyon & Peck, 1998).
Such negotiations need not be explicit (indeed, in many cases they are quite
tacit). Furthermore, rather than focusing on any one particular policy or practice,
26 • HRS: Emergence and Types

organizational interests often focus on systems or bundles of practices. Thus,

another influence on HR strategy adoption is the degree of fit between particular
policies and practices (Becker & Huselid, 2006). Such notions of systems fit, inter-
dependence, or bundling resonate with research on configurational HRM, which
suggests that managers often seek to adopt an inherently coherent or aligned set
of policies and practices (e.g., Huselid, 1995; MacDuffie, 1995; Subramony, 2009).
This line of research focuses on internal fit—that is, the notion that for HRM to
deliver added value, a firm’s system of HRM practices must be characterized by an
underlying logic, such that the practices adopted cohere and mutually reinforce
each other to elicit congruent behaviors from the organization’s human resources
(Baird & Meshoulam, 1988; Feldman & Pentland, 2003; Osterman, 1987; Wright &
Boswell, 2002). For example, an emphasis on employee involvement should be
reflected in spending per worker in training, as well as in annual evaluation criteria.
Accordingly, certain policies or practices may be adopted not so much because they
contribute to the value of the firm, but rather because any alternative would “fit” less
well with those already in place.
Clearly, numerous factors underlie cross-organizational variance in the adop-
tion of HR strategies, and these factors themselves appear to be highly inter-
related. For example, organizational size may predict the adoption of certain
HR practices as a function of their effects on organizational structure and insti-
tutional relations (i.e., visibility and threats to legitimacy). Thus, while market
forces may be highly predictive of certain types of HR strategies and practices
under one set of institutional or political conditions, they may have little or
no impact under other conditions. We explore this issue in more detail in the
next section.

HR STRATEGY FORMULATION: RATIONAL PLANNING

VERSUS INCREMENTAL APPROACHES
Two main perspectives dominate discussions on the formulation of business strat-
egy. The rational planning perspective holds that strategy is formulated (or at least
should be) on the basis of formal and rational decision-making processes. The rival
incremental approach sees the strategy formulation process as characterized by
informality, intra- and inter-organizational politics, fragmentation, and, to a certain
extent, even chance.
While at one time many practitioners advocated a formal and rational planning
process, most have come to accept that given the bounded rationality of organiza-
tional decision makers (March & Simon, 1958), the most that can be done is to follow
a more logical yet adaptable process of incrementalism (Quinn, 1978). Following
their lead, researchers have also begun to generate theories that attempt to narrow
the gap between these two perspectives. In this section, we first review a number of
descriptive and prescriptive studies based on one or the other approach. We conclude
the section with a discussion of one of the theories developed in order to bridge these
two perspectives: strategic reference point theory. Our discussion follows the key
points highlighted in Figure 2.1.
 Adoption, Formulation, & Implementation • 27

RATIONAL INCREMENTAL
Assumptions Organizational strategy taken as given Politics and institutional pressures just
as important as technical merit
Technical merit is key
Multi-directional, iterative process
Downward cascade

Process Business strategy HR strategy HR strategy Business strategy

OR OR
Business strategy Organizational Business strategies HR strategy
Structure and work process HR
strategy
Institutional pressures
OR OR
HR input Proposed business HR strategy Structural
Strategy HR review Final inertia Business strategy
Business strategy HR strategy

STRATEGIC REFERENCE POINT THEORY OF STRATEGY FORMULATION

Assumptions Stakeholder interdependencies are key

Strategic reference points selection is a function of rational and

political/institutional forces

HR strategy framed around strategic reference point configuration

Managerial cognition is key

Process Power dependence relations Selection of human resource strategic reference

points (HRSRPs)

Human resource strategic reference points Human resource strategy

Current position of firm relative to HRSRPs

Figure 2.1 Alternative Theories of HR Strategy Formulation

Models Based on the Rational Planning Perspective

Early studies of the HR strategy formulation process tended to be highly prescriptive
in nature. That is, their intent was to demonstrate, typically on the basis of organiza-
tional case accounts, the efficacy of one formulation approach over another. Descrip-
tive models of HR strategy formulation emerged out of this prescriptive research.
Many of the early descriptive models of HR strategy formulation were little more
than extensions of basic planning models (e.g., Walker, 1980). Indeed, the key dif-
ferences between manpower planning and HR strategy formulation as described in
these studies revolve around (a) the issues to be addressed in the planning process,
28 • HRS: Emergence and Types

and (b) what might be referred to as the planning “horizon” (i.e., short-term versus
long-term). Personnel-planning models advocated forecasting HR needs on the basis
of one- or two-year business plans, and then reconciling these needs with the results
of some sort of internal supply analysis. Of primary concern were issues related to
the organization’s required skill mix, intra-organizational personnel flows, and over-
all staffing levels. In contrast, early prescriptive models of HR strategy formulation
advocated taking into consideration the longer-term needs of the organization (i.e.,
a three- to five-year planning horizon) as well as a wider range of HR-related issues
such as operational flexibility, employee competence, morale, and commitment.
Nevertheless, these prescriptive models remained firmly grounded in the rational
planning approach, and thus assumed that there should exist a one-way link between
organizational or business strategy and HR strategy, with the latter being based pri-
marily if not entirely on the former. For example, a number of scholars (e.g., Smith,
1982; Kerr, 1982; Leontiades, 1983) admonished managers to make HR decisions
that are consistent with organizational goals. Smith (1982), for instance, suggested
that HR policies need to be tailored to reflect the future needs of the organization.
Thus, in the same way that other functional units generate system-specific strate-
gies (e.g., for finance, marketing, etc.) on the basis of corporate strategy, so must the
HR function. Others (Leontiades, 1982; Gerstein & Reisman, 1983) suggested ways
of matching personnel activities with organizational strategic plans. Formulating
an effective HRM system thus meant designing a HRM policy to shape employees’
behavior and attitudes, and utilizing HRM practices to align and integrate people
of various competencies from different organizational units so as to align with the
organization’s overall strategy.
Studies in the 1980s supported the application of such prescriptive models. For
example, Dyer (1984, p. 161) proposed that “organizational strategy is the major
determinant of organizational human resource strategy,” and cited a number of
studies as providing support for this proposition. One such study, LaBelle’s (1983)
exploratory analysis of HR strategy formulation in 11 Canadian companies, found
that firm strategy was the most frequently mentioned and most strongly emphasized
determinant of organizational HR strategy. The study also found “clear differences”
in organization HR strategy configurations across businesses that were pursuing dif-
ferent organizational strategies (Dyer, 1984, p. 161). Dyer also cited Wils’ (1984)
discussion of the HR strategies pursued by 22 different strategic business units of a
single corporation as further evidence that business strategy is the strongest predic-
tor of HR strategy. Similarly, Ackermann (1986), applying Miles and Snow’s (1978,
1984) typology of business strategies (“defenders,” “prospectors,” and “analyzers”; see
Chapter 3), argued that as different HR strategies are appropriate for each business
strategy, it is natural for the former to be formulated on the basis of the latter.
During the late 1980s and the early 1990s, several authors (e.g., Schuler & Jackson,
1987; Wright & McMahan, 1992) further proposed conceptual frameworks intended
to model how HRM activities are developed to support organizational strategy. Com-
mon to these frameworks was the view of strategy as a downward cascade, with the
first stage being the identification of high-level business needs. Based on an analysis
of these needs—which are shaped by factors both external (e.g., economic, political,
 Adoption, Formulation, & Implementation • 29

or sociocultural conditions) and internal (e.g., organizational culture, cash flow, or

technology)—top-level management defines an overall, corporate-level mission,
targets key mission-based objectives, and specifies broad programs and policies
designed to help the organization achieve these objectives. These objectives, pro-
grams, and policies then become the basis of HR strategy, with the latter strictly con-
tingent on the former. More recent empirical evidence supports these notions. For
example, innovation-driven organizational strategies have been found to be predic-
tive of one set of HR subsystem strategies, while organizational strategies focusing on
alternative means of achieving competitive advantage (e.g., a quality-enhancement
strategy) were predictive of a completely different set of HR subsystem strategies
(e.g., Huang, 2001; Liao, 2005).
As suggested above, a firm’s strategy may also have indirect effects on HR strategy
by determining organizational structure (e.g., functional versus product based) and
work processes (e.g., mass production versus flexible manufacturing). Changes in
these factors, frequently manifested in terms of changes in information processing,
automation, political influence, and the like, affect the strategic direction of the
organization and thus create the need to align HRM strategy with these changes
(Armstrong & Baron, 2002; Mello, 2001; Ulrich, Younger, & Brochbank, 2010).
For example, new product/service innovations, mergers, or joint ventures and
partnerships often necessitate shifts in HR policy and practice (e.g., performance
management systems, compensation) in order to motivate innovation and/or shift
employee orientations.
While most early prescriptive models accepted this premise that HR strategy
must be formulated on the basis of organizational strategy, by the mid-1980s, sev-
eral scholars proposed that organizational strategy should also take into account
function-specific constraints. For example, Baird, Meshoulam and DeGive (1983)
suggested that while HR strategy must be formulated on the basis of requirements
specified in the organizational strategy, corporate strategic planning is most effec-
tive when the HR function is involved in the formulation of organizational strategy.
They argued that as corporate strategy is based on information stemming from the
internal and environmental analyses conducted by functional units, corporate strat-
egy cannot be formulated without some sort of HR input. Moreover, they argued, the
HR function has a critical role in helping shape the organization’s corporate mission,
given that HR is typically the organizational unit responsible for tracking shifts with
respect to many of the factors that play into the corporate mission, whether these
are environmental (technological, economic, or demographic) or cultural (values or
beliefs). Thus, while the HR function may have limited direct influence on corporate
strategy formulation, it does have the ability to influence the information and hence
premises upon which corporate-level strategic decision making is based.
Other researchers (Bamberger & Phillips, 1991; Huang, 2001; Mikkelsen, Nybø, &
Grønhaug, 2000) concluded that HR strategy is not necessarily based strictly on
the organization’s business strategy. Rather, they suggested that factors such as
uncertainty, technology, and demographic change often directly affect the choices
made by those responsible for the formulation of HR strategy. That is, while these
environmental factors might or might not have been used as inputs into organizational
30 • HRS: Emergence and Types

business strategy, at least in the companies studied, there was substantial evidence
that HR strategists directly applied the results of their own environmental scan-
ning and took such issues into consideration regardless of whether or not they were
reflected in the organizational business strategy.
Lundy and Cowling (1996) proposed an even more proactive and influential role
for the HR function in the strategy formulation process. They argued that HR, like
all other organizational functions, should be granted not only an intelligence role
in shaping business strategy, but a review role as well. Specifically, they recommend
that each functional area, including HR, receive data concerning corporate or unit
opportunities and threats, as well as the strategic options being considered. Taking
existing internal capabilities (i.e., structures, systems, processes) and external condi-
tions (i.e., labor, economic, legislative) into account, the functions would review and
assess each policy option, and the overall business strategy would be determined on
the basis of each of these function-specific assessments. As with earlier prescriptive
models, Lundy and Cowling (1996) argue that the overall business strategy should
still provide the foundation upon which HR strategy is formulated; but as is apparent
from the process described, a business strategy adopted in this manner is more likely
to take into account the constraints and concerns of the HR system.
Importantly, scholars taking the proactive approach also raise questions about
the basic efficacy of a rational planning perspective when applied to HR strategy
formulation. In particular, they argue that other factors such as intra-organizational
politics and institutional pressures are likely to moderate the way in which those
responsible for the formulation of HR strategy make sense of both business strategy
and environmental conditions, and the way these inputs shape the actual pattern of
HR decisions made. In this sense, this line of research is in many ways consistent with
the incremental perspective of strategy formulation that we describe next.

Models Based on the Incremental Perspective

Although most HR practitioners assume that top management has the ability to
formulate and implement appropriate strategies in a rationalistic, top-down mode,
many scholars are skeptical of this approach. Such scholars can be divided into
two groups. The notion underlying the first, logical incrementalism, was estab-
lished by Quinn (1980). Specifically, he acknowledged that strategic content and
processes are subject to a great degree of influence by organizational actors, but
claimed that this conscious shaping tends to occur incrementally and interactively
rather than as a complete whole, with strategies evolving “as internal decisions
and external events flow together to create a new, widely shared consensus for
action among key members of the top management team” (p. l5). A core element
of this approach is that, in many cases, intra-organizational politics influence
strategy formulation and implementation (Jackson & Schuler, 1999; Zhu et al.,
2008). The second group acknowledges a far smaller degree of conscious shap-
ing by organizational actors, assuming not only bounded rationality on the part
of those involved in the strategy formulation process, but also a high degree of
environmental determinism.
 Adoption, Formulation, & Implementation • 31

Interactive approaches to HR strategy formulation. In one of the earliest

descriptive studies of HR strategy formulation, Dyer (1983) identified three modes
by which organizations integrate organizational and HR strategy formulation. In all
three cases, the HR function contributes to organizational strategy formulation and,
in the process, also acquires early insights into its own strategic requirements. All
three processes require an assessment of the plan’s feasibility, desirability, and cost
from the HR perspective. Under the first mode, known as parallel planning, business
unit planners report on the implications of their strategic options from an HR per-
spective, typically after the strategic decisions have already been made. In addition to
forcing business-level planners to consider HR-relevant feasibility, desirability, and
cost issues, this process also enables those responsible for the HR system to start
developing their own strategies for dealing with the HR challenges expected as a
result of the plan’s adoption. Under the second mode, inclusion planning, HR con-
siderations are taken into account prior to the adoption of any particular plan. Busi-
ness managers are required to demonstrate that their strategic plans are feasible and
desirable from an HR point of view. Finally, under the third, participative approach,
data are provided proactively to those responsible for the HR system. Firms adopting
this approach allow these individuals to review the organizational strategy formula-
tion process and to advise or even challenge planners, if necessary, all the way to top
management levels. Such a participative approach gives HR decision makers a voice
in the business formulation process itself.
Unlike most prior literature, which explicitly or implicitly assumed a uni-
directional relationship from strategy to HR practices, many authors who fol-
lowed Dyer (1983) over the next two decades emphasized that HR strategy both
affects and is affected by organizational strategy in an interactive, two-way fashion
(Armstrong & Baron, 2002; Brockbank, 1999; Buller, 1988; Golden & Ramanu-
jam, 1985; Lengnick-Hall & Lengnick-Hall, 1988). For example, Lengnick-Hall
and Lengnick-Hall (1988), reviewing the strategy literature, took issue with the
perspective under which “human resources are considered means, not part of
generating or selecting strategic objectives” (p. 456). They argued that models
based on the rational perspective of strategy formulation make three question-
able assumptions: (a) that organizational strategy has already been determined;
(b) that HR strategy is inherently oriented toward the implementation of orga-
nizational strategy, and consequently has little to contribute to formulating orga-
nizational strategy or even identifying strategic ends; and (c) that while the HR
practices implemented may shift in response to changes in organizational strat-
egy, the issues addressed by these practices remain stable. In offering their own
“reciprocal interdependence” model of HR strategy formulation, Lengnick-Hall
and Lengnick-Hall (1988) suggested that firms that systematically and recipro-
cally consider HR in formulating organizational strategy will perform better than
firms that either manage the two strategy formulation processes competitively, or
formulate HR strategy as a means to solve competitive strategy issues. Armstrong
and Baron (2002) concur, remarking that “HR strategy should be aligned to the
business strategy . . . Better still, HR strategy should be integral part of the busi-
ness planning process as it happens” (p. 44).
32 • HRS: Emergence and Types

The notion of reciprocal interdependence between business and HR strategy

formulation has been gaining increasing support. For example, Taylor, Beechler,
and Napier (1996) used resource dependence theory (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978)
to predict the nature of the cross-level interactions in strategy formulation. They
argued that the degree of reciprocal interdependence is likely to depend on (a)
corporate orientation in the design of system-specific strategies (highly centralist
versus decentralized or learning); (b) the nature of inter-system resource transac-
tions and which systems are deemed by corporate elites to be critical to successful
implementation of corporate strategy; and (c) the competence of system leaders.
The role of HR strategy in contributing to business policy is likely to be greatest in
those organizations that are oriented toward decentralizing system-specific strate-
gies; where the HR system is viewed by corporate elites as providing a key basis of
competitive advantage; and where those managing the HR system are viewed as
highly competent. Such a resource dependence model, as noted above, is grounded
in notions of exchange, bargaining, and political interest. As such, predicting the
nature and outcomes of the HR strategy formulation process is possible only to the
extent that we have a firm understanding of the power and dependence relations
among all with an interest in the outcome. Another study, conducted in the context
of German industrial relations (Wächter & Müller-Camen, 2002), found support for
the notion of co-determinism in HR-firm strategy formulation. The authors noted
that in the German context, this is mainly achieved through strong formal employee
participation (work councils) rather than professional HR staff, as in the United
Kingdom and the United States, where employee representatives and labor union
have little influence on firm strategy.
Deterministic approaches to HR strategy formulation. Whereas the interactive
approaches just discussed leave it to HR system decision makers to identify, inter-
pret, analyze, and then act upon internal constraints when formulating HR strategy,
another set of theories suggests that the managerial role in shaping HR strategy may
be much more limited. For example, as discussed earlier, organizations seeking legit-
imacy and acceptance from institutional stakeholders (e.g., government agencies)
may adopt a common set of HR policies and practices regardless of overall firm strat-
egy. This institutional perspective (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Meyer & Rowan, 1977)
suggests that even those elements of HR strategy most aligned with the strategic
interests of the firm may be discarded in favor of HR elements perceived to be criti-
cal to ensuring basic organizational stability and survival. As Stephens (2001) notes,
such a view of “ ‘strategy as pattern’ recognizes that strategies are seen as the out-
comes of both planned and unplanned activities,” and views strategy as the “interplay
of choice, chance and circumstances” (p. 124).
Empirical research supports this notion that conformity to perceived stakeholder
expectations may play a key role in shaping HR strategy, and result in a high degree
of isomorphism or convergence in HR practices. For example, Huselid, Jackson, and
Schuler (1997) found that U.S. firms tend to achieve higher levels of technical HRM
effectiveness than strategic HRM effectiveness—a finding that they explain on the
grounds that the expectations and regulatory activities of key external stakeholders
such as government agencies (e.g., the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission)
 Adoption, Formulation, & Implementation • 33

and professional organizations shape these activities and provide a common basis for
both professional HR training and evaluation. Their argument suggests that institu-
tional pressures implicitly constrain the range of strategic options available to an HR
system. Similarly, Wright and Snell (1997), in their analysis of the literature on “fit” in
HR strategy, question a key assumption of those supporting a contingency perspec-
tive, namely that HR practices are adaptable to shifts in firm strategy. They claim
that institutional forces limit the ability of organizations to make their HR systems
adapt to changing competitive requirements. Finally, several studies have found that
institutional forces in the local environments of multinational firm subsidiaries often
constrain the ability of the parent to “export” key elements of corporate HR strategy
(Spell & Blum, 2005; Wocke, Bendixen, & Rijamampianina, 2007; Zhu et al., 2008).
Population ecologists also discount the role of management in formulating strat-
egy. These researchers argue that organizational performance and survival are largely
determined by the environment in which the organization is situated (e.g., Bartram,
2011; Hannan & Freeman, 1989; White, Marin, Brazeal, & Friedman, 1997). More
specifically, as noted by White et al. (1997), “the organization’s choice of evolution-
ary path, perhaps from among several viable in its environment, may be governed
by internal evolutionary drivers, which while they do not dominate, do constrain
the evolutionary effects of natural selection” (p. 1385). In line with this theory, envi-
ronmental characteristics such as population density and environmental turbulence
have been found to have greater predictive utility in explaining the “selection” of
organizations for survival than strategy. Although most scholars criticize population
ecology for downplaying the importance of choice of strategic direction for an orga-
nization, several contend that there is nothing inherent in population ecology theory
that “implies that management actions and decisions are not important” (Welbourne
& Andrews, 1996, p. 895). Indeed, Welbourne and Andrews argue that, to the degree
that structural cohesion—“an employee generated synergy” providing the firm with
a key source of structural inertia—is critical to firm survival, the initial design of a
firm’s HR system is an important determinant of firm survival and performance.
As they note, “rather than alter human resource systems to match life-cycle or busi-
ness strategy (as contingency theory suggests), organizations should design HR tech-
niques to strengthen structural inertia early in the life cycle and in this way increase
their survival chances” (p. 896). Their findings suggest that firms placing an empha-
sis on building a strong, cohesive workforce right from the start will increase their
survival chances. Nevertheless, in line with the deterministic tendencies of popula-
tion ecology theory, their findings also suggest that “the die is cast” early on in the
lifecycle of an organization, that the range of effective HR strategies to implement is
greatly limited once the firm has embarked on its course, and that, as Dave Barger,
former CEO of JetBlue Airlines put it, “one has to get it right, right from the start.”

Reconciling the Two Approaches—Reference Point Theory

In an attempt to reconcile deterministic and political incremental models of HR
strategy formulation with those models based on the rational planning perspective,
Bamberger and Fiegenbaum (1996) sought to explore cognitive concepts underlying
34 • HRS: Emergence and Types

managers’ strategic choices regarding the HR strategy formulation process. In this

respect, they advanced the concept of human resource strategic reference points
(HRSRPs), defined as the targets or benchmarks used by organizational decision
makers to evaluate their options, make strategic decisions, and signal system-wide
priorities to key stakeholders. The HRSRP configuration may be depicted graphi-
cally on a matrix incorporating three key dimensions: internal capabilities, external
conditions, and time (see Figure 2.2). The internal dimension captures the degree to
which targets emphasize HR processes (i.e., means) versus outcomes (i.e., ends). The
external dimension captures the degree to which the interests of various constituents
and institutions such as customers, competitors, or regulatory agencies are taken
into account. Finally, the temporal dimension focuses on the degree to which targets
emphasize historical as opposed to future/desired states. The theory proposes that
managers frame HR strategy around this configuration of reference points.
Up to this point, SRP theory draws primarily from the rational planning perspec-
tive in that it views managers as having a high degree of control over the strategy
formulation process. However, Bamberger and Fiegenbaum depart from the ratio-
nal planning perspective in two ways. First, they propose that highly deterministic
resource and power-based theories explain a system’s strategic reference point con-
figuration. Second, they propose that managerial interpretation and sense-making
processes moderate the translation of the HR strategic reference point configuration
into HR strategy.

Temporal External

Future Institutions

Customers
Past Competitors

Strategic Means

Internal

Strategic Ends

Figure 2.2 The Strategic Reference Point Matrix (Source: Bamberger and Fiegenbaum (1996))
 Adoption, Formulation, & Implementation • 35

Drawing from organizational theory, the authors argue that resource and power-
based theories may be helpful in understanding the emergence of configurations at
the system level. These include the population ecology (Hannan & Freeman, 1989),
institutional (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983), and resource dependence (Pfeffer & Salan-
cik, 1978) theories discussed above. A number of authors (Beckert, 2006; Fligstein &
Dauter, 2007; Zammuto, 1988) suggest that despite their differences, all these theories
lead to common themes with regard to organizational configurations because of the
power and resource-based contingencies upon which they are all based. Furthermore,
Ketchen, Thomas, and Snow (1993) found that configurations deductively derived
from such theories offered greater predictive efficacy than inductively derived config-
urations (a finding later supported in other studies; e.g., Bantel, 1998; Patel, Thatcher, &
Bezrukova, in press). Specifically, extrapolating to the subsystem level, the authors
argue that similar power- and resource-based contingencies may drive the clustering
of system-level phenomena such as reference points into SRP configurations.
In this context, the ability of any organization or interest to dictate the nature of a
given system’s SRPs is likely to be contingent on the dependence relations between that
organization or interest and the system over which it is attempting to exert influence.
Although this assumption may not be consistent with the more conventional notion
that system-level strategies are dictated entirely by constraints external to a given sys-
tem, it is consistent with the reciprocal interdependence theory of strategy formula-
tion discussed earlier. For example, on the basis of the assumption that power-related
contingencies underlie the clustering of HR strategic reference points into specific
SRP configurations, it is just as likely for a powerful organizational system to influence
firm-level strategy as it is for top management to use firm-level strategy to constrain
the emergence of a particular system-level strategic reference point configuration.
Bamberger and Fiegenbaum (1996) expand on this underlying proposition (i.e.,
that the level of HR influence in the firm affects all three reference point dimen-
sions and thus plays the key role in determining the nature of a firm’s HR strategic
reference point configuration) by demonstrating how power-dependency relations
influence the emergence of an HR-SRP configuration. For example, drawing from
earlier conceptual and empirical research (Dyer & Holder, 1988; Kossek, 1987), they
propose that in firms in which the HR function lacks influence, its ability to consider
forward-looking HR programs and policies may be greatly limited. As they note,

When evaluating and selecting among reference points, managers in weaker

functions will make greater use of historically oriented strategic reference
points. These individuals feel the need to justify strategic choices on the basis of
criteria that imply stability and (at most) only incremental change so that their
potential for survival and advancement within the organization is not placed at
risk. In contrast, managers in more influential functions will make greater use
of future-oriented strategic reference points. It is important to these individu-
als to be able to justify their strategic choices on the basis of criteria that imply
more overarching concerns and reflect their interest in securing broader and
more synoptic or comprehensive organizational change.
(p. 940)
36 • HRS: Emergence and Types

Similarly, they propose that in organizations in which the HR system is more

influential, (a) the internal dimension of the SRP matrix will be dominated by an
emphasis on outcome- (i.e., ends-), rather than process- (i.e., means-) oriented tar-
gets, and (b) the SRP configuration will be more externally oriented. With regard to
the latter, the authors argue that while all HR systems are required by law to take cer-
tain institutional interests into account when identifying system targets, the extent
to which additional external SRPs are considered is a function of the power wielded
by the HR system within the organization. For example, weak HR systems, which are
dependent on other organizational systems for resources and respect, are obligated
to pay close attention to the interests and concerns of those external stakeholders
in framing HR policies and practices, but tend to lack both the mandate and the
resources to consider a broader range of external reference points.
Although eight basic SRP configurations are identified (see Table 2.1), the
authors argue that HR systems tend toward one of two primary SRP configura-
tions, namely a “high-power” configuration (indicated by Cell 4) or a “low-power”
configuration (indicated by Cell 5). For example, studies describing the role of HR
in strategic planning in large MNCs suggest that HR strategy in these companies is
driven by a high-power SRP configuration; that is, one that is future oriented (five-
year plans), outcome based (i.e., concerned with bottom-line business outcomes),
and externally driven (i.e., focused on the demands of a wide range of stakehold-
ers in the firm’s environment) (Farndale et al., 2010; Jarrell, 1993). In contrast,

Table 2.2 HR Strategic Reference Points Configuration Options and Possible Tendencies
Loose/Outcome Control Tight/Process (Behavioral) Control

Managers’ Low Influence High Influence Low Influence High Influence

External Exposure
Low Cell 1 Cell 3 Cell 5 Cell 7
High Cell 2 Cell 4 Cell 6 Cell 8

Internal Dimension External Dimension Temporal Dimension

Cell Number Process/ Outcome/ Low High (Broad) Past Future
Means Ends (Narrow) External
Oriented Oriented External
1 X X X
2 X X X
3 X X X
4* X X X
5* X X X
6 X X X
7 X X X
8 X X X
* = high- and low-power configurations toward which HR systems may tend (assuming that the three determining factors remain
stable over time).
 Adoption, Formulation, & Implementation • 37

several authors (e.g., Bamberger et al., 1989; Dabic, Ortiz-De-Urbina-Criado, &

Romero-Martínez, 2011; Finegold & Frenkel, 2006) show that HR strategy in high-
technology startups and highly innovative ventures tends to be driven by a low-
power SRP configuration focusing on the relative improvement in the efficiency
of internal processes affecting primarily one internal customer (e.g.., R&D) over
past months or years.
In sum, while managers are posited to have a certain degree of control in framing
the SRP configuration that serves as a core input into strategy formulation, Bamberger
and Fiegenbaum (1996) posit that managerial control is often greatly bounded. While
incorporating and accounting for deterministic organizational theories, their theory
places a much stronger emphasis on the micropolitics of organizations (Bacharach,
Bamberger, & Sonnenstuhl, 1996) as a constraint on rational planning processes. Yet
further cognitive constraints on such processes are incorporated into their theory
with respect to the way in which the HRSRP configuration is predicted to shape
the pattern of HR policies and practices that we refer to as HR strategy. Findings in
this respect are especially interesting for research in the upper-echelon and strategic
choice traditions, as they provide some explanation for managerial behavior. In par-
ticular, they provide further explanations for managers’ varied responses to similar
events (Hutzschenreuter & Kleindienst, 2006). The HRSRP approach thus coincides
with research suggesting that managerial cognition is not an uncontrollable phenom-
enon but can, at least to a certain degree, be purposefully influenced (e.g., Wright &
Goodwin, 2002).
Drawing from prospect theory (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979), Bamberger and
Fiegenbaum (1996) argue that although the HR reference point configuration influ-
ences the nature of the HR policies and practices adopted, this effect is moder-
ated by the firm’s current position relative to its HR reference points. That is, the
way in which the HR strategic reference point configuration affects the nature of
the strategic choices made by HR professionals is contingent upon the degree to
which these decision makers view the system as being above or below its strategic
reference points.
Specifically, the researchers argue that the perceived position of the HR system
relative to its SRPs will determine whether the emergent HR strategy is conserva-
tive or bold and daring. In particular, they suggest that HR systems that are above
their reference points will be more likely to respond to new issues and situations
(e.g., the election of a new, more militant union leadership) as threats, and will
seek to minimize potential losses by adopting conservative and defensive policies
and practices (e.g., retaining a traditional, confrontational approach to labor rela-
tions). In contrast, HR systems that are below their reference points will be more
likely to view new issues and situations as opportunities and will seek to capitalize
on them by adopting more daring policies and practices, radically departing from
the norm or tradition. Using the example just cited, for an HR system well below
its SRPs, a profound shift in union leadership might provide the impetus needed
to encourage HR decision makers to question existing mental models and adopt
more innovative, joint labor-management programs (Kochan et al., 1986; Lewin,
2001; Senge, 1994).
38 • HRS: Emergence and Types

Thus, assuming that the skills of HR professionals are randomly distributed

across firms, the application of prospect theory to HR strategy suggests that the
HR system’s position relative to its key reference points will influence the willing-
ness of HR decision makers to challenge their own mental models and consider
the adoption of more daring HR strategies. It does not suggest that HR decision
makers, having identified their system as being above its SRPs, will suddenly dis-
card or fail to build on proven strengths because the nature of some of these
practices is still uncertain. Rather, it suggests that having identified the system
as being above its SRPs, HR decision makers are likely to build incrementally
upon these strengths but be reluctant to adopt programs that depart radically
from proven methods. Indeed, when such HR systems confront new situations or
issues to which they must respond, HR decision makers are more likely to opt for
responses that are consistent with identified strengths and tested routines—that
is, more conservative ones.

HR STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION
Implementation refers to the empirically observable behaviors constituting the
enactment of practices intended for adoption (Kostova & Roth, 2002). Research-
ers have noted that while it is relatively easy to specify an HR strategy, it can be
significantly more difficult to execute that strategy. Moreover, those policies and
practices actually enacted may be different from those originally intended by man-
agement when it laid out its strategy (Barney, 2001; Becker & Huselid, 2006; Khilji &
Wang, 2006).
Intended HR strategy refers to some configuration of HR practices formulated
by policy makers (HR managers and senior management) with the aim of securing
a specified set of HR-related objectives. That is, the intended practices represent
the operational manifestation of the HR strategy adopted by a firm’s decision mak-
ers, usually with the expectation that by adopting such practices, the organization
will be able to effect some desired change in employee attitudes and behaviors
(Khilji & Wang, 2006; Wright & Nishi, 2013). In contrast, implemented HR strategy
refers to practices that are actually adopted and institutionalized in organizations
(Wright & Nishi, 2013). An HR strategy may be viewed as being fully implemented
to the extent that the policies and programs upon which it is based are integrated
into other organizational processes and are utilized and applied on a routine basis.
Emphasizing the distinction between intended and implemented HR Strategy,
Gratton and Truss (2003) argue that the quality of an HR strategy is a function
not only of its internal and external fit, but also the degree to which its component
policies and practices are put into effect in day-to-day practice. They argue that
“a key message is that the bridging from business goals to employee performance
requires not only policies but also a determination to act, as seen through actual
practice” (p. 75).
The discussion above suggests that implementation involves both execu-
tion and employee acceptance. That is, while strategy execution may be asso-
ciated with a range of problems ranging from technical glitches in associated
 Adoption, Formulation, & Implementation • 39

HR information systems to active stakeholder resistance, even those strategies

executed may fail to be effectively institutionalized if employees are unaware of or
unwilling to utilize and/or comply with the new initiatives embedded in the strat-
egy, or if their perceptions of such initiatives are inaccurate (Arthur & Boyles,
2007; Boselie, Dietz, & Boon, 2005; Kuvaas, 2008; Truss, 2001). Research by
Wright and Nishi (2013) suggests that such accurate awareness cannot be taken
for granted and that a gap often remains between program/policy implementation
and employee compliance or utilization. Indeed, a number of studies suggest that
employees’ awareness and appraisal (i.e., as to the quality, availability, and fair-
ness) of HR policies and practices serves as an important yardstick for assessing
the institutionalization of new HR policies and practices and, ultimately, their
overall effectiveness (Boselie et al., 2005; Kehoe & Wright, 2013; Nishii, Lepak, &
Schneider, 2008).
The implementation challenge is not easily addressed, because obstacles exist at
both the individual and organizational levels (Wright & Nishi, 2013). As Olson, Slater,
and Hult (2005) put it, “brilliant execution is more important than brilliant strategy
for the simple reason that doing is harder than dreaming, and poorly executed strat-
egy is merely a vision of what could be” (p. 47). So what explains why some intended
HR policies and practices are more effectively implemented (i.e., recognized, com-
plied with, and utilized by employees) than others? Wright and Nishi (2013) address
this question at multiple levels.
At the individual level, the gap between intended and executed strategy may
stem from the fact that practices must usually be implemented by multiple
individuals who may employ different schemas in perceiving and interpret-
ing HR-related information. Drawing from such theories as social information
processing theory (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1977), research has found significant
between-person differences in the information individuals attend to, and how
that information is processed (based on past experience, personal tendencies,
cultural background, etc.). For example, in the psychological contract literature,
Rousseau (2001) argues that people’s past experiences with HR practices influ-
ence how they perceive and interpret HR and other organizational practices in
their current organization.
At the organizational level, the link between intended, implemented, and per-
ceived HR practices may represent a communication challenge, where poor vertical
communication and poor coordination across functions may impede implementa-
tion (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000). Relatedly, Bowen and Ostroff (2004) argue that HR
practices are organizational communication devices that aim to communicate to
employees certain messages (i.e., signaling employees to engage in certain behav-
iors). This may also be viewed as a political challenge. Political interests may be
involved in the formulation of HR strategy (as the notion of negotiated order noted
above suggests), but the “order” negotiated by those who “formulate” may not be eas-
ily imposed on those responsible for execution. Accordingly, a second wave of nego-
tiating may be required, due to conflicting interests and priorities, and the strategy
ultimately negotiated for execution may differ from that originally formulated (e.g.,
Beer & Eisenstat, 2000).
40 • HRS: Emergence and Types

SUMMARY
In this chapter, we drew upon the theoretical perspectives introduced in Chapter 1
to understand inter-firm variation in the adoption of alternative HR strategies as
bundles of particular HR policies and practices. Specifically, external, market-based
factors likely to influence the adoption of specific HR practices and policies were
viewed through the lens of rational choice, whereas external, nonmarket factors
as well as internal, political factors were viewed through the lens of constituency
theories.
In addition, we discussed intra-firm differences in the formulation of HR strategy.
Here, too, we employed two distinct theoretical perspectives that have dominated
much of the research regarding the way in which HR strategy is (or might best be)
formulated. The first, rational planning perspective, consistent with a rational choice
perspective on the variance in HR policies and practices across firms, suggests that
HR strategies are adopted on the basis of technical merit and strict economic utility.
Since technical merit and economic utility may vary from firm to firm (depending,
for example, on the nature of its work processes or organizational structure), accord-
ing to this perspective, such practices are likely to be adopted to the extent that they
meet primarily technical and efficiency criteria. With regard to the strategy formu-
lation process, this perspective suggests that HR strategy will, for the most part, be
based on firm business strategy and will focus primarily on providing the means
necessary for implementing that business strategy.
In contrast, the incremental planning perspective, consistent with the constituency-
based perspective on the variance in HR policies and practices across firms, suggests
that HR strategies are rarely adopted on the basis of technical merit alone. Instead, a
wide range of forces determine which practices will be adopted and when. According
to this perspective, the strategy formulation process is both informal and politically
charged. Furthermore, for those adopting this perspective, the link between HR strat-
egy and business strategy is in many ways bidirectional.
Finally, this chapter reviewed the literature on HR strategy implementation. In
our discussion, we emphasized that the policies and practices often espoused by
organizational leaders are not those always enacted, and even if enacted, are not
always those perceived by employees as having an impact on their work attitudes
and behaviors. Moreover, as noted by Kehoe and Wright (2013), “empirical work has
demonstrated that employees’ perceptions of HR practices significantly vary from
managerial reports of the HR practices in use” (p. 367). Kehoe and Wright’s findings
indicate that, regardless of the espoused HR strategy, it is in fact employees’ “col-
lective subjective experiences with HR practices” that affect the people-related out-
comes (such as commitment, absenteeism, and organizational citizenship behavior)
intended to be influenced by HR systems.
In spite of the debate over the formulation and implementation of HR strategy,
researchers have, for the most part, reached consensus on at least one key issue,
namely the existence of strategic configurations. That is, on the basis of consistent
research results across industries (Arthur; 1994; Becker & Huselid, 2006; Cappelli &
Neumark, 2001; Delery & Doty, 1996; MacDuffie, 1995), most HR strategy
 Adoption, Formulation, & Implementation • 41

researchers concur that HR practices tend to emerge in bundles or clusters and

that these configurations tend to systematically vary across organizations. How-
ever, there is far less consensus with regard to such questions as how many con-
figurations exist, how they differ, and which factors predict the emergence of
these bundles of HR strategies across organizations. We explore these issues in
the next chapter.
 3
MODELS OF HR STRATEGY

Having a better understanding of the forces driving the adoption, formulation,

and implementation of different HR strategies, the next question we must address
concerns the nature of these strategies themselves. In this chapter, we will examine
whether it is possible to speak of certain types of HR strategies and the degree to
which these types of strategies may systematically vary across organizations. The
ability to effectively distinguish among HR strategies is critical for researchers hop-
ing to generate and test theory regarding, for example, the impact of HR strategy on
such outcomes as firm performance, and the degree to which such effects may be
contingent on a firm’s overall business strategy.
Recalling that we defined HR strategy as the pattern of decisions regarding the
policies and practices associated with the HR system, on an operational level, it
should be possible to distinguish among HR strategies on the basis of the HR policies
and practices in place—an approach that would be unwieldy to say the least, given
the vast number of possible ways such policies and practices could be combined.
Fortunately, as we noted in the previous chapter, HR practices and policies appear to
emerge in bundles or clusters, and these clusters of practices tend to systematically
vary across organizations as relatively stable configurations.
Analyzing the configuration of HR strategies in terms of typologies is appealing
to HR researchers for a number of reasons. First, unlike taxonomies, which catego-
rize phenomena into mutually exclusive and exhaustive sets with a series of discrete
decision rules (Doty & Glick, 1994), typologies are grounded in less rigid conceptual
schemes. These conceptual schemes, or, as Weber (1949) referred to them, “ideal
types,” do not exist in reality, but rather provide a theoretical reference point against
which observable phenomenon can be compared and assessed. In this sense, they “are
intended to provide an abstract model, so that deviation from the extreme or ideal
type can be noted or explained” (Blalock, 1969, p. 32). Without the identification of

42
 Models of HR Strategy • 43

ideal types of HR strategies, it would be difficult (at best) to describe differences in

strategy across organizations and nearly impossible to generate falsifiable hypoth-
eses. Thus, the development of empirically grounded typologies is a critical step in
theory development, giving researchers the ability to identify relationships among
the different typological dimensions (Etzioni, 1961; Mintzberg, 1979; Porter 1980,
1985). Indeed, Doty and Glick (1994) argue that configurational frameworks and
typologies, when constructed properly, meet the same basic criteria as theories—
namely, they are structured around specified and falsifiable relationships among a
set of well-identified constructs or characteristics.
Second, configurational analysis, or analysis across identified types, is well
established in the field of management and organizational theory. Configurations
are “conceptually derived interrelated sets of ideal types, each of which represent a
unique combination of the organizational attributes that are believed to determine
relevant outcomes” (Doty and Glick (1994, p. 232). As Fiss (2007) points out, because
many organizational characteristics (e.g., practices, structure, cultural artifacts, and
membership composition) tend to appear in relatively stable clusters (as opposed to
modular or loosely coupled arrangements), this approach allows for multiple levels
of analysis both within and across organizations.
Third, theoretically, individual HR practices should tend over time to support and
reinforce one another. Building on the notion of internal fit discussed in the previ-
ous chapter, a number of researchers (e.g., Becker & Huselid, 2006; MacDuffie, 1995;
Subramony, 2009) have argued that the appropriate unit of analysis for studying HR
strategy is not the individual HR practice, but rather bundles of internally consistent
HR practices. McDuffie’s findings in the automobile industry provide strong sup-
port for this argument that HR practices tend to be “bundled” together into distinct
models or configurations, each having its own underlying logic.
Finally, the field of business strategy is, to a large extent, structured around the
identification and application of typologies and strategy configurations. Two of the
most well-known typologies of business strategy were developed by Porter (1980,
1985) and Miles and Snow (1978, 1984). Porter (1980) identified two main strategy
types used by firms to achieve sustainable competitive advantage. Under Porter’s
typology, firms that follow a “cost leadership strategy” aim to strengthen the market
potential of their products or services by developing a lower cost structure. The alter-
native is a “differentiation strategy,” whereby firms seek to distinguish themselves
from their competitors in ways that are valued by customers (e.g., quality, service, or
timeliness). By thus positioning themselves relative to their competitors, firms can
charge premium prices for their products or services. Typically, the cost leadership
strategy is associated with mass production methods, and the differentiation strat-
egy with “flexible” production methods (e.g., Allen & Helms, 2006; Buhalis, 2000).
According to Porter, firms with strategies close to one of these ideal types are likely
to outperform those that adopt a heterogeneous collection of practices, because the
latter tend to be less able to align and focus the utilization of their resources.
Miles and Snow (1978, 1984) identified three ideal types of business strategies,
which they called “defenders,” “prospectors,” and “analyzers.” Defenders have a nar-
row and stable market for their product or service, and they focus on efficiency and
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 CHAPTER XXIII
CARDINAL BABIES

Bird-lovers who have long waited for the advent of certain young
birds will understand my interest in this little fellow. I called him or
her, for I did not know the sex, Natal or Natalie, for he was hatched
on the twenty-first of June, the natal day of Halifax.
The last thing at night and the first thing in the morning I looked
out to the trees on the veranda to see if he were quite safe and
comfortable, and I slept with my window wide open so that I could
hear any disturbance in the night.
One very bright moonlight night last summer I heard my
handsome robin Dixie give a loud shriek of dismay, and begin to fly
nervously about the veranda. I find robins are nervous sleepers. The
least thing wakens them, and I lay for a few seconds listening to him
calling and flying to and fro. When he began to rouse the other birds
I sprang up and went softly to the window. I could see nothing, so I
spoke to the birds, and when they quieted down, went back to bed.
Presently he started again, and this time some of the birds,
instead of merely flying to and fro, began to throw themselves
against the wire netting of the veranda.
A panic in an aviary is a serious thing, especially if there are
several hundreds of birds who lose their heads at the same time. In
my aviary I always have dark corners where birds can fly and hide. I
would never put birds under a transparent roof with no place of
retreat.
However, this night panic was different from a fright by day. The
birds had been violently awakened from sleep, and had completely
lost their heads. They had not sense enough to keep in the
protected corners when they got in them. Something unforeseen
and startling had occurred, and again I crept softly to the window. I
could see nothing out of the way. Of course my mind went to the
cats, but since I had had the board put around the elevator, no cat
had ascended it.
Finally, I noticed a dark mass behind one of the trees. It was
motionless, and I concluded that it was one of the bunches of seed-
grass I tossed among the branches for the birds. However, to make
sure, I would examine it. I stole across the veranda, and there
outside the netting, perched on the railing, was a large black cat
looking me calmly in the eyes.
I told her what I thought of her and her family and she took it
gracefully. Then I said “Scat,” and told her to go down whatever way
she had come up.
She coolly retreated a few paces to a Virginia creeper, and swung
herself down, as I suppose she had come up—namely, paw over
paw.
“The naughty cat has gone, birdies,” I said, and went back to my
room.
To prove the nervousness of robins, I will only have to say that in
a few seconds Dixie was screaming again. This was pure
reminiscence. The cat had gone, there was nothing there; but this
time he acted worse than he had yet done, and he frightened one
bird into hysterics. I heard this one knocking himself against the wire
netting like a catapult.
How could any bird head stand that dreadful thumping? I hurried
to the spot, and to my dismay discovered that the bird gone crazy
with terror was my baby cardinal.
I descended upon him, clasped him in my hand—though I always
prefer to catch a bird in a cloth—and absolutely flew to the veranda-
room. In there it was dark, and he could not see to beat himself
against the windows.
His breath was coming in fluttering gasps—of course he thought
the cat had him. I put him quickly on the floor and ran from the
room.
I was afraid he was dying. “If I lose him,” I said to myself, “how
can I forgive that cat?”
I scarcely dared look from my window in the morning; but there,
oh, joyful sight! was my beloved baby bird running to and fro along
the windows of the veranda-room, trying to get out.
I speedily opened the door, and he flew to his parents, who were
delighted to see him.
Strange to say, though they beat him, they would scream angrily
at me if I approached too near the little fellow. They kept up a kind
of interest in him, though they chastised him.
All day I watched my bird baby, and it seemed to me that nothing
for a long time had made me as happy as his escape from death by
fright.
I forgave the cat, but the next day I had to call back this
forgiveness. I was standing in the middle of the veranda, when I
heard, a sound that always strikes dread to my heart. It was a
wretched, asthmatic breathing that I have never known a bird to
recover from.
Which one was the victim? My eye ran anxiously around my small
bird world. Not Red-top; no, he would be the last one I could give
up. Not Touzle, the dear mother bird, not Dixie, best and brightest of
robins, not his friend the sparrow, not Blue Boy the indigo bunting,
nor the goldfinch Boy, nor Andy and his mate, nor any of the sweet-
singing canaries. Not old man Java, nor the rosy-faced love-birds,
and not, oh, no! not my last, but almost best-loved bird, the cardinal
baby.
I stepped near to him and he flew away. The hard breathing
stopped, and it seemed to me for a minute that my heart stopped
too. I followed him, and the wretched, rasping sound was now quite
close to me. My baby was doomed. I would have to give him up. In
some brighter, fairer world I might see that pretty creature mature
and perhaps live forever—who knows—for many wise men say that
there will be a future life for birds, that an all-wise and all-merciful
Father will never utterly destroy any created thing that has in it the
spark of life.
There was only one thing to be thankful for. I would have time to
get acquainted with the certainty of his death—and as far as I could
observe, a bird’s sufferings were not extreme when afflicted in this
way. The canary Britisher had the same trouble, and he seemed to
get a great deal of pleasure out of life. So day by day I watched my
pet, and delighted in giving him all the dainties he would eat.
He lingered on until I left home in the autumn, but shortly
afterward died. I heard that the dear little bird with the reddish-
brown crest had been picked up dead on the floor of the aviary.
Poor baby—I cannot think of him without emotion, but to my joy I
have dreamed of seeing him well and happy and trotting about
among his former companions.
Some one speaks of birds “making sweet music in one’s dreams,”
and I often have the pleasure of seeing my pets about me during my
sleeping moments.
Next summer I hope my Brazil cardinals will be more successful in
the raising of young ones. I notice that year after year they get
tamer and more reasonable.
One morning last August I heard Red-top making a great noise
about daybreak. His usual habit during summer is to wake at the
first streak of day and begin singing in a whisper, and gradually to
ascend into a hearty song. This particular morning he was so noisy
that I went to the glass door and said, “You are making a great
racket, my boy. Think of the neighbors.”
Before I spoke to him he had been swelling out his throat, singing
with all his might, “Cheery, deary, wearie, dearie,” supposedly, to
enliven Touzle on her woven nest near him.
After I spoke to him, he put his crested head on one side, as if to
think over what I had said and remarked, “Hi, hi; that’s true!” then
went off to play with his mirror, singing in a lower key, and tapping it
briskly with his beak.
My birds all follow his example of singing before it is really light,
then, getting their breakfast later on, when they can see well.
Red-top amused my married sister one day by falling into a trap
we set for him. I wanted to catch him for some reason or other, and
put some of his favorite dishes into a large cage and tied a string to
the door.
He watched me cunningly, and would not go in.
“Please take the string,” I said to my sister; “I believe he will go in
for you.”
 I left him, and she said after I had gone he threw her a careless
glance, as if to say, “You don’t count, you never catch us,” and
immediately walked into the cage, whereupon she laughed at him
and pulled the string.
All my cardinals have been very strong birds, and never for one
instant lose their spirit. Whenever I catch one—Virginian or Brazilian
—they fight me, bite my fingers, and fall into a rage of resentment
without terror. They know I won’t hurt them, but they want me to
know that they are birds of too high lineage to be handled.
One day Red-top got one leg so tangled in a long bit of twine he
was weaving into his nest that he could not move. I had to call my
sister to help me cut him free, and he fought us all the time we were
engaged in our amiable task.
Another day he got whitewash in his eyes. That too made him
angry, and I telephoned to our physician, who told me to wash his
eyes with warm water, then put in sweet-oil with a medicine-dropper.
The next day I bathed them with boracic acid, and in a short time he
was quite well.
So great a favorite with me is this charming bird that for his sake I
fall into a state of such sadness when I see his fellows in shop
windows that I can scarcely describe my feelings, lest I be taxed
with exaggeration. The suffering I experience is perhaps akin to that
of the devoted friend or relative of a bright and beloved child who
sees another child resembling him in a wretched and unhappy home.
For the sake of the first dear child you shudder as you witness the
sad case of the second. So with the Brazil cardinals. I most earnestly
hope that the time will soon come when the iniquitous traffic in
foreign birds will be stopped. We are protecting our native birds.
Why not extend our protection to the helpless, lovely, and interesting
foreigners? They too suffer, and beat their young lives away against
cruel prison-bars.
Here in this large and kind-hearted city of Boston I saw the other
day European goldfinches and linnets going up and down their
cages, trying the wires with their little beaks, pleading vainly for
freedom. My heart ached as I looked at them.
 I often say to bird-dealers, “How thankful I am that you can no
longer sell native birds.” These men do not care. There are plenty of
other birds on the market. Now, if we can only free the unfortunate
foreigners, bird-dealers who really love birds will find occupation in
bird reservations and large aviaries, for I have come to the
conclusion that undomesticated birds should be confined only for
some wise purpose, or for scientific research.
I have already said that I ordered a mate for my red Virginian
Ruby as well as for Red-top. When she arrived I found that instead
of being a rosy-red bird like the male, she was of a dull brownish-
vermilion. However, she was a handsome bird, and in fine condition.
She darted from her traveling-cage, and the brilliant Ruby fell into
the most ludicrous state of amusement, ecstasy, and bewilderment.
He acted like a simpleton, flying to and fro after her, twisting his
body from side to side, spreading his tail and wings, elevating and
lowering his fine crest, singing at the top of his voice, then winding
up with something earnestly delivered that sounded like, “What a
dear! what a dear!”
All this was going on at the same time that the naughty Red-top
was beating poor Touzle. I watched both pairs of birds, and Ruby’s
bodily contortions were so fantastic that I was overcome with
laughter.
He paid no attention to me. He was altogether taken up with the
vivacious and handsome Virginia, who would not allow him to come
near her. She flew from one end of the aviary to the other, switching
her tail from side to side, avoiding him systematically, and making
him sleep away off from her when night came.
This shyness did not last. Soon the two were very great friends,
and flew about together all day long. Ruby’s delight in the
companionship of one of his own kind took the form of feeding her.
He kept the choicest morsels he found and put in her beak, almost
exercising self-denial, for at the time of her arrival I did not have a
sufficient supply of his favorite insect food in the aviary. If there was
only one worm, Virginia got it.
I don’t know whether she appreciated his devotion or not. She
was a restless creature, very unlike Touzle, who was quiet and
reposeful. Virginia never kept still for any length of time, unless it
was the nesting season. Then she sat quietly on her nest, day after
day, and week after week.
I had some curious experiences with her, and every season it was
the same thing. She made a nest, laid eggs, sat patiently on them till
they hatched out, then began to feed the young ones until the day
that I found them either on the ground, or laid out in a row on a
window-ledge.
I got to dread the sound of young Virginians chirping in the nest.
They were rarely allowed to live more than a few days, and it was
painful to find the plump, dead bodies, well-shaped and looking well-
nourished. What killed them? I shut up one suspect after another.
The gallinules, the mockingbird and Ruby himself. Red-top would not
dare to go near his enemy’s nest. Not until two years ago did I
discover that Virginia herself lifted them out.
This was a blow to the mother-love theory, but I gave her the
credit of thinking that the young ones died in the nest, and not
being able to endure the sight, she took them out. They were rarely
mutilated. They had been carefully carried in her powerful beak.
One day I was shocked to find three young ones about ten days
or a fortnight old squirming on the window-ledge. This was
downright murder. I revived one, kept him for part of the day, then
he died. These were fine young birds with feathers starting.
I puzzled more and more. There was plenty of food in the aviary,
and Virginia herself was in fine condition, for she would make three
or four, or even five nests a year. This last summer she murdered
four sets of young ones. I took a fifth lot from her, but they died on
my hands. I had one theory after another to account for this
slaughter but none of them was satisfactory. Feeling that another
bird-lover might be more successful with her in the nesting season, I
sent her this autumn, with Ruby, to a skilled curator of birds, and
next summer I shall await results with interest.
I shall miss her and Ruby immensely for, strange to say, the
Virginian female possesses a song almost equal to that of the male
bird. When she was upstairs and Ruby down below, and they sang
to each other, I often sat in my study listening to them and thinking
of Mary McGowan’s lines with regard to the red cardinal:

No slumber songster he, with vesper warblings low,

But bold his every note, and full and strong:
In his clear ringing pledge, hear him unstop the flow,
Then gurgle forth the red wine of his song.

Virginia never became very tame, but Ruby reminded me of a dog,

in his ways. One night I shut him in the furnace-room for some
reason or other, but he fretted to get back to Virginia, and after dark
I went downstairs with my small candle lantern, for I had to be
careful what sort of a light I carried among the dry spruces and firs
of the aviary. Ruby was pressed against the wire door. He spoke to
me, and I held the lantern close to him and guided his feet back to
Virginia. Too impatient to wait he hopped on ahead, and I followed
quickly, trying to keep the swinging light steady.
He was so reasonable, so sure of me, so grateful for what I was
doing, that I could scarcely refrain from seizing his pretty red body in
my hands and caressing him as I do my pet pigeons whom I often
wake from their sleep.
When he got near Virginia he climbed into a tree with a satisfied
“Tsip!” and I left him.
He was an exquisite night singer; indeed, one of his names is the
American nightingale, and one summer I had to request him to
descend to the basement to sleep, as his loud night-singing
disturbed a delicate neighbor. He was a very mischievous bird, and
one day when I was carrying a hammer and nails about the aviary,
he espied a match in the box, and darting down, flew off with it for
his nest. I pursued him for a long time before I could persuade him
to drop the dangerous plaything.
It is a great delight to me to reflect that these lovely cardinals can
no longer be bought in the birdstores. How any one can enjoy the
sight of this bright red bird, with his wild, free spirit hopping to and
fro in the narrow confines of a cage, is as much of a mystery to me
as the wearing of his dull and lifeless skin in a hat. We must educate
our children into the conviction that a dead bird is as grotesque an
ornament as a dead mouse or a dead frog.
 CHAPTER XXIV
SPARROWS AND SWALLOWS

Poor little brown immigrants, how many enemies and how few
friends they have, and yet what have they done to deserve so hard a
fate? Merely following out the biblical instruction to multiply and
increase—they always remind me of true Anglo-Saxon stock. They
protect the family, they fight all strangers and, “Colonize, colonize,”
is their motto.
I have had quite an extensive acquaintance with the English
sparrow, both in town and in the country, and I think that this bad
boy of the air has a worse name than he deserves. Undoubtedly he
is bad; so are all boys, and all birds, and all men and women. We
want supervision, correction, restriction—but the sparrow has good
points.
Sparrow mothers lead all birds in mothering, as far as my
observation goes. Again and again I have put a baby sparrow on the
roof. He is a stranger picked up in the street. I do not know what
nest he comes from, he does not know, no one knows. He is like the
poor dog in the express car on a certain railway that ate up his tag.
No one knew what place he was bound for.
Well, the instant the lost sparrow opens his little beak and gives a
cry of distress, three or four mother sparrows come flying toward
him with their beaks full of food. They don’t wait to see whose baby
he is, as some human mothers would wait. He is a baby, and he is
hungry, and they are going to feed him, and they do it until he
flutters from the roof, and I have to pick him up and take care of
him myself. If I put him in a cage and set him back on the roof, the
street sparrows will try all day long to feed him through the bars.
Yes, indeed, a mother sparrow is the best mother bird I know.
I have never tried them with the young of other birds, but I have
tried their young with canaries. My canaries are the dearest and best
of parents to their own nestlings, but none of them will feed the
babies of other canaries. As for young robins, yellow warblers,
finches, and sparrows, they utterly ignore them, unless they have
particularly piercing voices. In these cases the canaries grow
nervous and stuff their own young ones as if they thought the cries
of distress issued from their throats.
Once I saw a canary hitch up to a young sparrow and look down
its throat. He then shook his crest and hopped away, as if to say, “I
could never fill that cavity.” Two summers ago I put a demure, well-
behaved young sparrow baby into a cage of German canaries. She
hopped into the nest, settled her little gray body down among the
four yellow birds, and unheeding the mother’s impatient pushes and
shrugs, sat there till she grew old enough to take to a perch. After a
time I took her out of the cage and put her on the veranda. She
played there all day, but every night she came in to sleep near the
canaries.
I knew she was in the room, for she flew out every morning when
I opened the screen-door, but where was her sleeping-place? I
looked high and low, but could not find her for a long time, until late
one night, when I was saying, “I wonder where that bird is?” I saw
something move slightly on the top of the canaries’ cage. A sheet
was thrown over it, and under the sheet was the smallest and
flattest projection. I laughed as I looked at it, and said, “I have
found it at last.”
Every night this quaint little sparrow, Judy by name, had crawled
up under the sheet and had slept on the wires of the cage, over her
foster-mother and the young canaries. It was a very uncomfortable
sleeping-place, and after I found her out she never used it again,
but took to a box on the wall near a mirror. There she sat calmly
gazing at me night after night as I held up the light to look at her.
She was so interesting that I could not let her go. She seems to
recognize a certain kinship with the street sparrows, for she chirps
excitedly to them, but she does not care to go out with them, and
has chosen for a mate a widowed Java sparrow, who is not so
devoted to her as she is to him. He is good to her, however, and flies
about with her, but she does all the nest-making. This summer she
had a curious structure of straw among some fir branches that she
kept adding to, until it was over a foot long. For some months she
laid eggs in the middle of this nest. Occasionally I took out a few
and gave them to the other birds to eat, but when I lifted the nest
down this autumn there were still a dozen in it.
I was sorry she had been too flighty to rear some Java and English
sparrow-hybrids. They would have been most interesting. Perhaps
she will have more steadiness next summer. I used to be amused
with her at breakfast-time. She would lean far out of her nest to see
what I was giving to the other birds, then with a joyful sound to her
mate that sounded like, “O Java,” she would fly down to investigate.
One sparrow I had, learned to sing some of the notes of the Brazil
cardinal. The cardinal hated him and beat him frequently, but the
sparrow followed him from place to place, and practised his little
tune till it was becoming quite perfect. A sparrow is said to have a
good vocal apparatus, and I suppose there is no reason why he
should not sing if he wants to. Unfortunately, I put this bird out of
the aviary, and I have never heard him sing again. Perhaps the birds
in the street shamed him out of it.
My sparrows have mostly been good sparrows, and as a class
have not been greater fighters than other birds. I have observed
them in the aviary and out of it, and have rarely seen them chase or
annoy smaller birds. In the city, goldfinches, robins, some warblers,
purple finches, and song-sparrows came about the roof-veranda,
and talked to the birds inside the netting, and sometimes my
canaries go out and fly about, but the sparrows never interfere with
them.
On my farm the sparrows were equally good. They never injured
the tiny wild birds that came for food, but fed peaceably with them.
On neighboring farms sparrows were known to tear swallows’ nests
to pieces, but they never molested my swallows, though they built
close to our house doors. I think possibly the reason lay in the
abundance of food scattered about. The little rogues knew that there
was enough for them summer and winter. They understood that I
liked them, and they did not harm my other pets.
 They are most intelligent birds. Living by their wits has developed
them amazingly. In Paris I used to be interested with their
discrimination in the matter of making friends. An elderly man who
fed a flock in the Tuileries Gardens had gained the confidence of
every member of it. They would not come to strangers, but when he
called “Jeanne! Pierre!” and the rest of their names, each bird would
fly to him in turn.
I had a great affection for the skimming swallows about my farm,
and often watched them as they caught flies or went to the low
ground for mud for their interesting nests. I was very sorry to find
that many of these graceful swallows suffered as much from
parasites as other wild birds I had known.
One case, on a farm near me, was quite painful for the sufferers.
A window in a carriage-house loft had been left open, and a pair of
old swallows, finding the rafters a secluded place, built a fine mud
nest against them. When the young ones were hatched they were
visited every day by the farmer’s wife, who grieved to find them
attacked by fat worms that mostly crawled into their ears. These
worms were half an inch long, had no hair, but possessed
rudimentary feet like a caterpillar’s, that were only visible under a
microscope. One worm penetrated a young bird’s nostril so far that
only a tiny piece of his body was visible. Enough remained in sight to
seize upon, but his forced exit from the nostril was followed by a
gush of blood. The sore place soon got well, and the other young
swallows also recovered after their ears were cleaned out.
The kind-hearted mistress of the farm destroyed this mud nest,
made a new one of excelsior and wool, put the little swallows in it,
and the parents, far from being frightened by this radical change in
their environment, went on feeding their young ones, conducted
them out into the world beyond the carriage house, and came back
the next year to nest in the same place.
Two stories about the swallows interested me greatly. The first
one was to the effect that the robin was the bird who undertook to
teach the first swallow created how to build a nest. I could imagine
the fussy, nervous robin entering upon the task with great haste,
and it is said that she very quickly got out of patience. Every time
she opened her beak to tell the swallow how to choose her mud and
sticks, and how to shape the nest, the intelligent bird would say, “I
know that; I know that.” At last, and unfortunately when the nest
was only half finished, the robin became exasperated and flew away,
and from that day to this every swallow has to be content with a
partial home that often falls to pieces.
The second story was a Swedish one, and relates that when the
crucified Christ hung on the cross, a swallow kept flying back and
forth crying, “Svala! svala!”—comfort, comfort!
I do not believe in the increase of sparrows, and yet I bring up a
certain number of them every year. How can I refuse the children
who come to me with the tiny birds and say, “This is our sparrow,
please feed him. We will call in a few days to see how he is.”
“Children,” I often say falteringly, “if this is a sick sparrow, you
won’t blame me if I chloroform him?”
“Oh, no,” they always cheerfully reply, but unfortunately the
sparrow is rarely a sick sparrow. He is usually in the best of health,
and he opens his yellow-rimmed beak and stares trustingly at me,
and after I give him one meal my fate is sealed. I am nurse-in-chief
for many days, though a young sparrow, of all my birds, learns
soonest to feed himself. Life is sacred in the eyes of children, and
the way to get rid of sparrows is not by inciting boys and girls to
destroy them.
The whole department of bird and animal life should be under
supervision. We have too many cats and dogs, too many sparrows
and pigeons in our cities. The health of the citizens is the first
consideration. Each city should maintain bird-houses, and bird
reservations. If I can raise shy birds on a city veranda, why could not
more wild birds be raised in bird-houses in public gardens and
parks?
It would not be an easy matter to thin out the sparrows, or utterly
to destroy them, but it could be done, and our wild birds could be
enticed back, and less money and time be spent in fighting insect
pests. The birds’ little beaks will do more effective work than all our
spraying and tree-climbing.
 It must amuse the birds immensely to see big, clumsy mankind
trying to ferret out the gipsy moth, for example. The sparrows do
eat some insects’ eggs and larvæ, for I have seen them do it inside
and outside my aviary—but it is a hopeless task to try to defend
these poor little fellows—these “avian rats,” these “cosmopolitan
pests,” as ornithologists call them. I cannot dislike them nor call
them names. They are brave little birds, and when I throw open my
window on a cold winter morning, and see them waiting on the
opposite roofs for their breakfast, and reflect that they alone of all
the summer birds are left to us in the city, I cannot deal harshly with
them.
Under a certain tree, is emptied each day a certain amount of
grain, no more no less, and it is put there whether I am at home or
not. Birds like to know what to depend on. They don’t want to be
fed spasmodically any more than we do. All day the sparrows flutter
about the house. As far as I can make out we have a flock of sixty or
seventy in our neighborhood. When night comes they tuck
themselves away under the house-eaves, getting near the chimneys
if they can. When the time comes to exterminate them I will help. In
the meantime I do not see what good it would do to carry on an
unsystematic and shocking killing of the helpless young ones—the
pets of my children friends.
 CHAPTER XXV
A MOTHER CAREY’S CHICKEN

Perhaps the strangest pet I had in my aviary was a black bird that
was brought to the door one evening by a boy. He said that a young
man had picked up this pigeon on the common, and had told him to
bring it to me. I found that it was a sooty-looking bird, with a tubular
bill and white feathers at the end of its tail—evidently a Mother
Carey’s chicken—that had probably been flying across the peninsula
on which the city of Halifax is built, and had dropped in exhaustion. I
saw that it was ill, and as soon as I could, hurried to the fish market
and interviewed an old sailor who had fished on the banks of
Newfoundland. He told me that flocks of these petrels used to follow
his ship, eating the fish livers that were thrown overboard and that
floated for days behind them. He had no liver on hand, but he gave
me a whiting, for he said that fish would also float on the water.
I knew nothing about these deep-sea matters—I only know
Mother Carey’s chickens by seeing them follow Atlantic steamers;
but finding that the petrel would not eat the whiting, I went back to
the sailor and got some liver that he had managed to secure for me.
The petrel would not eat this either, so I called my sister and
asked her to kindly get out our feeding-sticks. After cutting up pieces
of the liver she took them one by one on her sticks and dropped
them into the bird’s long bill that I held open for her. After a meal
was over I wiped his face and put him on the floor, and he scuttled
under the radiator. One day I put him in a bath, but he went right
under the water, and I had to take him out.
He never fed himself, and three times a day we got out our sticks
and the fish liver. He was gentle but feeble, and was more lively at
night than during the day.
When displeased he made a peeping noise, and at all times he
possessed a strong and peculiar smell.
 I had him for three weeks, and for a time he improved, and would
fly low over the floor, ascending and descending as if going over
waves of the sea.
I hoped that he would soon get entirely well, so that I might give
him his liberty, but he suddenly became very ill and died, regretted
on account of his gentle disposition.
We photographed him before losing him, and found him a good
bird to pose. Some of our birds were most aggravating when they
saw a camera. They were not afraid of it, but they acted like
naughty children, getting behind it and under it, and everywhere but
in front of it. Many an hysterical laugh have we had when, time after
time, just as a successful group of birds, dogs, cats, or hens had
been placed in good position, half our pets would get up and saunter
away.
At last the sight of the camera produced such a state of merriment
in the family that my sister, who had infinite patience with our pets,
would send us all away, and manage the four and two-footed
creatures alone.
In speaking of unmanageable pets, I must make honorable
mention of our fox terrier Billy, who was with the birds so much that
he might almost be called an inhabitant of the aviary. He did not
love the birds—he was jealous of them—but he never harmed them
and, moreover, they knew he would not harm them, and had no fear
of him. He never played with them, but he would wallow with Sukey
in the accumulation of scraps, seeds, grass, and other rubbish on
sweeping days in the aviary, until I have seen the maid gently push
them both aside with her broom.
Billy would cheerfully pose when he saw a camera, and follow us
whenever we went to the photographers in the town. One day when
my mother was having her picture taken, Billy placed himself at her
feet. The photographer took him up and lifted him to what he
considered a more attractive position.
I shall never forget the look of doggish reproach that Billy gave
him as he walked back to his original position, and held it. It seemed
to say, “Don’t you know, sir, that I am a dog that is used to posing? I
know how to show off my good points better than you do.”
 Strangers sometimes remarked that no member of our family was
photographed without this pet dog.
“We cannot help it,” we used to reply, “Billy follows us and gets
into the picture. We can’t keep him out.”
Dear little dog! He was the last of the real animals in “Beautiful
Joe,” to leave us, and a year ago, at the age of sixteen years and a
half, lay down one day to die, as calmly and peacefully as he had
lived.
 CHAPTER XXVI
SWEET-SWEET AND THE SAINT OF THE AVIARY

Among the books that I bought when I started my aviary was one
that amused me immensely. It was a clever book, but the description
of each bird almost always began with the assertion that this
particular bird was the best, the brightest, and the prettiest bird of
the entire race of birds.
I have not had the variety of birds described in that book, but now
that I am attempting to relate the particulars of some of my pets, I
find myself tempted to ascend up to the same heights of eulogy.
Each bird is the best bird. Each one is the most beautiful, the most
lovable—one has to exercise self-restraint to avoid exaggeration.
I have had quite a large number of birds that I cannot write about
at length. I will merely mention some of them.
I one day expressed a wish to have some bluejays in the presence
of a bird-fancier, and shortly afterward he arrived with a pair that he
had bought from a woman near Halifax, in one of the colored
settlements composed of descendants of Southern Negroes. They
were handsome birds, and as I released them in the aviary I could
not help thinking that if they were foreigners how greatly they would
be sought after.
Their appearance in the aviary occasioned the greatest
consternation among some of my birds, whose instinct recognized in
them hereditary enemies. This instinct of fear in these partly
domesticated birds is the same that makes them cower when a
hawk passes over their cages.
One indigo bunting fainted and fell motionless on the ground. I
took her upstairs where she would not see them, and the other birds
soon quieted down, for the blue jays went into a corner and stayed
there, only occasionally uttering harsh, unhappy cries.
 I wondered how they had ever contented themselves in a small
cage with the colored woman, if they were so unhappy in my aviary.
I begged them to have patience, that there were fires in the forests
about the city, and as soon as they were extinguished I would set
my prisoners free.
Finally a bright morning came, when I put them outside the
window, and they flew swiftly away, and I hope are living happily in
my beautiful native land.
Shortly after they left me, a small boy arrived at our door with a
tiny cage, scarcely suitable for a canary.
“I heard you had a pair of bluejays you don’t want,” he remarked
composedly, “and I thought I would take them and keep them in this
cage.”
I tried to make him view this proposition from the bluejays’ point
of view, and embraced the occasion of preaching again the doctrine
that it is a cruel thing for a boy to rob a bird’s nest, or confine a bird
in a cage. Also, that I wanted no eggs from nests, and no nestlings,
except those that had wandered far from their parents, and who
would starve if left to themselves.
I found no trouble in getting boys to understand this. Boys and
girls are just what the grown people make them. If we are kind to
birds they will imitate us.
Among the small birds that I have owned were some interesting
native siskins, that I found languishing downtown in a tiny cage one
hot August day. I bought them, and the delight of these wild birds
on getting into roomy quarters was very touching.
They flew at once to the spruce and fir trees, and began eating
their tips. Subsequently I gave them their liberty, and they raced
each other to the tops of the tallest trees they could find.
A smaller bird than the siskin was a tiny, yellow warbler whose
eyes seemed unnaturally large for the size of its body. A little girl
brought it to me one morning, closely folded in her moist hands.
“It is a weeny thing,” she said in an awed voice. “I saw it in our
stable. It would not go away, so I walked up to it and put my hands
over it, for I was afraid pussy would get it.”
 “It is one of the many warblers in this neighborhood,” I said.
“They often come to the wire netting and talk to my birds. I will take
good care of it.”
I intended to release the little creature as soon as he got rested,
but he became so tame and followed me about with such
unmistakable devotion shining from his dark eyes that I could not
bear to part from him.
Sweet-Sweet I named my new pet, and one Sunday morning I
was inexpressibly grieved to find that I had accidentally struck the
little fellow as he came too near me.
I picked him up and sprinkled water on him whenever he had a fit
or seizure, in which he either lay still or fluttered wildly to and fro. I
did not go to church, but devoted myself to poor Sweet-Sweet, and
encouraged him to eat when he came out of his spasms. By night-
time he was almost well, and next day had quite recovered.
Unfortunately, and to my very great surprise, my bird with the
melting eyes was a great fighter, and would attack birds so much
larger than himself that I trembled for his safety. He was not nearly
so large as my canaries, but he would fight any of them with the
greatest intrepidity.
I really should have allowed this little beautiful but mischievous
bird to fly away when the autumn came, but I had grown so much
attached to him and he was so much at home in the aviary that I
could not make up my mind to let him go. I also had a little curiosity
to see whether I could keep a warbler all winter.
He got on nicely until one unfortunate day, when he made up his
bird mind to bully one of my Japanese robins.
I have never found these robins quarrelsome, but this one deeply
resented Sweet-Sweet’s interference with the rapid tenor of his way.
I was just wondering what I should do with my naughty warbler, for
I knew his gay, impatient spirit would fret itself to death in a cage,
when one day I found that the Japanese bird had flown into a rage
with him, and had almost torn him to pieces.
I was shocked—I can hardly express the short, sharp pain I felt,
when I picked up that tiny, beloved bird body. Only a bird, but how
dear! If I had only let him fly away with the other yellow warblers to
some fair southern land! I selected two of the greenish-yellow
feathers, crossed them, and put them in my bird diary with the
mournful entry of his death.
Sweet-Sweet had been a worse fighter than any English sparrow I
ever saw, and a worse bully and fighter than Sweet-Sweet, was
another small bird I possessed for years—a brilliant red, blue, and
gold nonpareil.
He was not brilliant when I got him. I had seen pictures of
nonpareils, and had asked a bird-dealer to get me a pair. He sent
them to me one cold winter evening, and to my dismay, on opening
the birds’ traveling-cages I found that one of them was diseased, his
red neck being bare of feathers.
I wrote the bird-dealer an indignant letter, reproving him for
sending a sick bird on a journey, and telling him that I never again
would buy a bird from him. The proper way, of course, to discourage
the traffic in birds is not to buy them. This dealer probably cared
little for my remonstrance.
I put this little sufferer at once into a large cage, with fresh seeds
and water. He had a succession of fits, and tumbled and fluttered
about his cage. However, in between the fits he would eat and drink,
while I sat admiring his courage. When bedtime came he heroically
mounted a perch and sat there, so weak that he rocked to and fro
for a long time before his little claws got a firm grip of the perch.
Finally he was able to put his head under his wing, or back of his
wing, as I always wish to say, and went to sleep.
When I read bird stories as a child I always fancied that a bird put
the head under the side of the wing next the breast, whereas he
reaches back and tucks the head behind the wing. The position looks
uncomfortable, but I suppose the bird knows best about that.
As I have said before, I was disappointed in the appearance of
these dull, olive-green nonpareils. They were young ones, and I had
to wait three years for them to become like the beautiful birds in my
books, with the violet heads and necks, the partly red and partly
green backs.
They are natives of Mexico and Central America, and rarely get
farther north than northern Illinois and Kansas. They used to be
trapped in great numbers and shipped to the Northern States, there
to languish in captivity. They are partly insectivorous birds, and miss
their accustomed diet in cage life. If canaries required insect food
they never would have become the highly domesticated birds that
they are.
I put my sick nonpareil into the cage with a Java sparrow that was
also out of condition. I scarcely thought the new-comer would live
through the night, but my mother, who is an early riser, called out to
me in the morning that the little Southerner was as “pert” as
possible.
I had a hard time with him, as I had also with Java. They both lost
all their feathers. The nonpareil was the worst looking bird I ever
saw. I called him Baby, and he was soon a naked, skinny, scaly-
legged baby, with nothing attractive about him but his soft, dewy
eyes. I kept him and Java oiled and secluded in my study. They were
not ugly to me, but strangers were apt to burst into peals of
laughter at sight of their featherless bodies.
Every night I woke them up about eleven o’clock to take a late
supper, for they became rather indifferent about their food, though
apparently they did not suffer. I dreaded the long winter nights for
them in their enfeebled condition. Java became very tame, and
when I tapped the cage and said, “Come out for a walk,” he would
hop all around the room. Of course, there was no flying for either of
them in their condition.
Everything passes with time, and in a few months my birds’
purplish-red bodies became dark in hue, then crowds of downy pin-
feathers jostled each other. In a short time my hideous little pets
were, one, the exquisitely-hued nonpareil, the other the modest gray
and white sparrow, with feathers overlapping so smoothly that he
looked like a carved bird.
I regret to say his prosperity, instead of sweetening Baby’s
disposition, soured it, and when I put him into the aviary he speedily
took to himself the rôle of persecutor. He was so small that he could
not do much harm, but he used to fight continually, often in a very
amusing fashion.
 One day I saw him attack a fawn-colored, foreign finch that we
called the Widow. She was eating seeds from a box, and Baby tried
to push her away. The Widow bit him and would not yield. Then
Baby seized her tail and pulled it. She did not seem to mind this, so
he pulled harder. Then, as she was still indifferent, he fell upon her
and gave her a beating and forced her to leave him in possession of
the field. This was not serious, but the naughty Baby progressed in
wickedness, and finally whipped a timid canary so violently that she
died, and also struck a Bengalese finch a blow that was the cause of
his death. Bullying was bad enough, but this was murder, so at last I
kept the bad little nonpareil in my room the most of the time. He
perched on a cage in the wall near my mirror, and seemed to take a
certain amount of satisfaction in being with me. He lived for several
years, and only died a few months ago. I noticed one day that he
seemed very much excited, and leaving my room flew into other
bedrooms—a thing he rarely did. One morning a little later I found
him lying motionless on the floor. His little mischievous life was over,
and I was sorry for it, for when he was good he was “very, very
good.”
The saint of the aviary is little Blue Boy, the indigo bunting, alive
yet, and prosperous, though I have feared for his life again and
again. I never saw him strike a bird. I never saw him do anything
naughty. He is quiet and gentle in his habits, never interferes with
the other little birds, gets up early, waits patiently for his food till
others have finished, retires to quiet corners and sings his little
tinkling songs, goes to bed betimes, and if it is a warm moonlight
night, is apt to wake up three or four times and sing to himself, not
loudly, but loudly enough to cheer any light sleeper.
Indigo Bunting
Page 260
 He never chose a mate. He never seemed to want one. He is the
most quiet, self-contained, meek little bird imaginable. If any bird
chases him he flies to his little box in my room. The only thing he
begs for is a cockroach. He will hop toward me in the morning with a
pleading expression, if I have not one of the most unprepossessing
members of the beetle tribe for him.
At one time I started cockroach culture in a companion box to that
of the meal-worms. My mother was resigned, but doubtful about the
experiment, and I noticed that the cockroaches all fell victims to
some sudden calamity during one of my absences from home.
However, by diligent search, we can usually find two or three
around the hot-water pipes at night, and the maid I have taking care
of the birds, writes me that she tries hard to get “a Cockroach every
Night for the Little Blue Bird.”