Human Resource Strategy Formulation

Implementation and Impact 2nd Edition Peter A.

Bamberger pdf download

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

Get Instant Ebook Downloads – Browse at https://ebookgate.com

Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) available
Download now and explore formats that suit you...

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/

ebookgate.com

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/
ebookgate.com

Aligning Human Resources and Business Strategy 2nd Edition

Linda Holbeche

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

ebookgate.com

Internet Marketing Strategy Implementation and Practice

3rd Edition Dave Chaffey

https://ebookgate.com/product/internet-marketing-strategy-
implementation-and-practice-3rd-edition-dave-chaffey/

ebookgate.com
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/
ebookgate.com

From Resource Allocation to Strategy Joseph L. Bower

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

ebookgate.com

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/

ebookgate.com

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/
ebookgate.com

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/

ebookgate.com
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
 Another Random Document on
Scribd Without Any Related Topics
And to you also Et à vous aussi And tou you àlso
cosen Ralf. Cousin Raphael. cosin Ràlf.
Ralf. Raphael. Ràlf.
How doe you? Comment vous Haù dou you?
portez vous?
How is it with you? Comment vous est- Haù is it ouis you?
il?
Androw. André. And.
Well thankes be to Bien Dieu mercy, Ouel tanks by tou
God: So so. tellement God: So so.
quellement.
Ralf. Raphael. Ràlf.
From whence come D'où venez vous? From houens com y?
you?
Androw. André. And.
I come from home. Ie vien du logis. Ey com from hòm.
Relf. Raphael. Ràlf.
Whether goe you? Où allez-vous? Houéder go you?
Androw. André. And.
I go to the market. Ie m'en vay au Ey go tou dé market.
marché.
Ralf. Raphael. Ràlf.
And I also: We shall Et moy aussi: Nous And ey àlso: Ouy
goe together, if you yrons ensemble si chàl go tou guéder if
will. vous voulez. you ouil.
Androw. André. And.
I am glad of your Ie suis ioyeux de Ey am glad of yor
company: But before vostre compagnie, company: Bout bifòr
we goe, it were good Mais auant que d'y ouy go, it ouêr goud
to drinke a pinte of aller, il seroit bon de tou drink a peint of
wine. ouein.
 boire vne pinte de
vin.
Ralf. Raphael. Ràlf.
Whether shall we Où yrons nous? Houéder chàl ouy
goe? go?
Androw. André
At the Byshops head, A la teste de At Bichops hêd, or at
or at the Cardinals l'Euesque ou au dé Cardinals hat.
hat. chappeau du
Cardinal.
Ralf. Raphael. Ràlf.
Let vs goe: How Allons: Hau Simon, Let vs go: Haù
Symon, shall we aurons nous vne Seimon, chàl ouy hàf
haue a pynte of wine pinte de vin bien a peint of ouein ouel
well drawen? tirée. drààn?
Symon. Symon. Seimon.
You be well come: Vous estés les You by ouel com:
What wine will you tresbien venuz Quel Houat ouein ouil y
drinke? Will you eate vin voulez vous drinke? Ouil y éét
any thinke. boire? Voulez vous any tink?
manger quelque
chose.
Ralf. Raphael. Ràlf
Geue vs of the best Donnez nous du Gif vs of dé best
wine you haue: Geue meilleur vin que vous ouein you hàf: Gif vs
vs some whitte wine. aiez. Donnez nous som houeit ouein.
du vin blanc.
Clairet wine. Du vin clairet Claret ouein.
Red wine. Du vin rouge Red ouein.
Frenche wine. Du vin francois Franch ouein.
Gaskyne wine. Du vin de gascoigne. Gaskin ouein.
New Renishe wine. Du vin de rin Nù Renich ouein.
nouueau.
Good sakke. De bon sec Goud Sek.
Good Mamesie. De bonne maluoisie Goud Mamesi.
Good Muscadene. De bonne Goud Muskadin.
muscadelle.
New wine. Du vin nouueau Nù ouein.
Old wine. Du vin vieil. Aùld ouein.
Androw. André. Andro.
Bring vs a quart of Apportez nous vne Bring vs a kouart of
your best Whitte quarte de vostre vin yor best houeit
wine: For it is blanc car il est le oueìn: For it is
wholesommer in the plus sain au matin: & haùlsommer in dé
morning: and a role vn pain molet & du màrning: and a ròl,
and some butter. beurre. and som bouter.
Simon. Symon Seimon.
You shall haue it: Vous l'aurez. Que You chùl hàf it. Haù
How like you this vous semble de ce leik you dis oueìn?
wine? vin?
Ralf. Raphael. Ràlf.
I like it very well. Il me semble tres Ey leik it very ouel.
bon.
Androw. André Andro.
This wine is faire and Ce vin est beau & Dis oueìn is fêr, and
pure. pur. pùr.
Simon. Symon Seimon.
To you gosseppe A vous compere Tou you gossif Ràlf.
Ralf. Raphael.
Ralf. Raph. Ràlf.
I thanke ye, Ie vous remercye: Ey tànk y,
Grammercy, good grand mercy mon Grammercy, goud
brother. bon frere. broder.
 Androw. André Andro.
Let vs dispach: Let Depeschons nous: Let vs dispatch: Let
vs make hast, to faisons haste de vs mék hast, tou
breake our fast. deieuner. bréék aouor fast.
Ralf. Raph. Ràlf.
Pure some wine: Versez du vin. Pouòr som oueìn:
Geue me some wine. Donnez moy vn peu Gif my som oueìm.
de vin.
Androw. André. Andro.
The pot is emptie: Le pot est vuide il n'y Dé pot is empté: Dêr
There is no more: en a plus. En aurons is no mòr: Chàl ouy
Shall we haue an nous encores vne hàf an oder peint?
other pynt? pinte.
Ralf. Raph. Ràlf.
No, It is tyme to goe Nenny, il est temps No, It is teìm tou go
to the market. d'aller au marché. tou dê market.
Androw. André. Andro.
When you please. Quand il vous plaira. Houen you pléés.
Ralf. Raph. Ràlf.
How Simon. Hau Simon. Haù Stìuin.
Simon. Simon. seimon.
Doe you lacke any Vous faut-il quelque Dou you lak any
thinke? Doe you call? chose, appellez tink? Dou you càl?
vous?
Ralf. Raph. Ràlf.
What doe we owe? Que deuons nous? Houat dou ouy aù:
What haue we to Qu'auons nous à Houat hàf ouy tou
pay? paier? pê?
What must you Que vous faut il? Houat must you hàf?
haue? Let vs haue a Ayons vn conte: Let vs hàf a rékning:
reakening:
What is to pay? Qu'y à-il à payer? Houat is tou pê?
Simon. Symon. Seimon.
You haue to pay: you Vous auez à payer, You hàf tou pê. you
owe, eight pence, vous deuez viij aù, êct pens: and
and you be well deniers & vous estes you by ouel com.
come. les bien venuz.
Androw. André. Andro.
Hold you money, Tenez vostre argent Haùld yor monné:
Fare you well à Dieu compere. Fare y ouel gossippe.
gossippe.
Simon. Symon. Seimon.
GOD be wy my A Dieu mes amis à God bouei mey
frendes at your vostre frinds: At yor
commaundement. commandement. commundement.
Androw. André. Andro.
Now let vs goe to Maintenant allons au Naù let vs go tou dé
the market. marché market.
Ralf. Raph. Ràlf.
Let vs go. Allons. Let vs go.

The Poulter. Le poulailler. Dé Paulter.

What doe you buye? Qu'achettez vous? Houat dou you beì?
What doe you lacke? Que vous faut il? Houat dou you lak?
Ralf. Raph. Ràlf.
Showe me a coupell Monstrez moy vne Chaù my a couple of
of good, and fatte couple de bons & goud, and fat rabits.
rabettes. gras lapins.
A fat Capon. Vn chapon gras. A fat kêpon.
A good henne. Vne bonne poule. A goud hén.
A fatte goose. Vne oye grasse. A fat goùs.
A good goseling Vn bon oison A goud gaseling
A dosen of larkes. Vne douzaine A dozéine of larks.
d'allouettes.
A stoke doue. Vn ramier. A stok douf.
A Hayre. Vn lieure. A hêr.
A mallart. Vn canard. A malart.
A ducke. Vne cane. A douk.
A drake. Vne cerceule A drêke.
A crane. Vne grue A crêne.
Vn moyneau
A sparrow. Vn passereau
Vn moison
} A sparo.

A woodcoke. Vn videcoq A Oùdcok.

A swanne. Vn cyne A souan.
A blackbirde. Vn estourneau A blakbêrd.
A Parret. vn perroquet A parret.
The poult. Le poul. Dé Paul.
Here be them, that En voila qui sont fort Hiér by dem, dat be
be very good and bons & gras. very goud and fat.
fat.
Ralf. Raph. Ràlf.
They be very stale. Ilz sont vieux tuez. Dê by very stêl.
The Poul. Le poul. Dé Paul.
Truely, they be very Veritablement ilz Trùlé dê by very nù.
new. sont bien fraiz.
Ralf. Raph. Ràlf.
How sell you them? Que les vendez Haù sêl you dem?
vous?
How much? Combien? Haù mutch?
The Poul. Le poul. Dé Paul.
Ten pence the Dix deniers le Ten pens dé couple.
couple. couple.
 Ralf. Raph. Ràlf.
It is to much, C'est trop, It is tou mutch,
you are to, deare, Vous estes trop cher. you àr tou, diéér.
They be not worth Ilz ne vallent pas Dê by not ouors so
so much. tant mutch.
They be worth but a Ilz ne vallent qu'vn Dê by ouors bout a
grote. gros. gràt.
The Poul. Le poul. Dé Paul.
They be not mine for Ie ne les ay point Dê by not meìn for
that price. They pour le pris. Ilz me dat preis, dê cost my
coast me more. coustent d'auantage. mòr.
Ralf. Raph. Ràlf.
Tell me your lowest Dites moy vostre Tel my yor lauest
word. dernier mot ouord.
The Poul. Le poul. Dé Paul.
Are you willing to Voulez vous acheter àr you ouilling tou
buye? be?
Ràlf.
Yes, if you will, be Ouy si vous voulez, Ys, if you ouil, by
reasonable. estre raisonnable. rêsonnabel.
The Poul. Le poul. Dé Paul.
At one word: you A vn mot vous en At ouen ouord: you
shall pay two grotes paierez deux gros. chàl pê tou gràtes
for them. for dem.
Ralf. Raph. Ràlf.
I will pay but six Ie n'en paieray que Ey ouil pê bout six
pence for. six deniers pens for.
The Poul. Le poul. Dé Paul.
I may not sell them Ie ne les peux Ey mê not sel dem
so. vendre ainsi. so.
Ralf. Raphael. Ràlf.
Fare you well then. A Dieu donc. Far ouel den.
The Poul. Le poul. Dé Paul.
Here ye Syr: Cast Escoutez Sire: Hiér y Ser: Cast
th'other penye. mettez l'autre denier. toder peny.
Ralf. Raph. Ràlf.
I will pay no no more Ie n'en paieray non Eil pê no mòr for.
for. plus.
The Poul. Le poul. Dé Paul.
You are a very hard Vous estes vn You àr a very hard
man: Well, you shall homme fort dur: man: Ouel, you chàl
haue them: Bien vous les aurez. hàf dem:
I sell this day. Robin- Ie vens auiourd'huy Ey sell dis dê Robin
hoodes peners: Shall au prix de Robin- houds peners: Chàl
I fleae them? hout. Les ey fléé dem?
escorcheray ie?
Ralf. Raph. Ràlf.
Yea, here is your Ouy voila vostre Yé, hiér is yor
money. argent. monné.
God be wy Ser. A Dieu Sire. God bouey Ser.
The Poul. Le poul. Dé Paul.
Well come Ser, at Bien venu Monsieur Ouel com Ser, at yor
your à vostre commaundement.
commaundement. commandement.

The Costerdmonger. Le fruitier Dê Costardmonger.

B Vuy you any

apples? A
cheté vous des
pommes. B Ey y any aples?

Who buye of my Qui achette mes Hoù beì of mey

apples. pommes. aples?
Ayles Alix. êles.
How many for a Combien pour vn Haù many for a
peny? denier? peny?
How sell you the Qu'en vendez vous le Haù sell y dé
hundreth? Cent? hondred?
The Cost. Le fruitier. Dé Cost.
I sell them, twelfe a Ie les vends douze Ey sell dem, touelf a
peny. au denier. peny.
You shall pay two Vous en paierez deux You chàl pê tou
shillings for the soulz du cent. chelings for dé
hundreth. hondred.
Ayles. Alix. êl.
Haue you any Auez vous des Hàf you any pepins.
Pepines. pommes de renette.
The Cost. Le fruit. The Cost.
The fayrest in Les plus belles de Dé fêrest in London.
London. Londres.
Ayles. Alix. êl.
Shal I haue thirtie for En auray-ie Trente Chàl ey hàf serty for
a peny? au denier? a peny?
Or els, you shall Ou bien vous aurez Or els, you chàl hàf a
haue a shilling for vn soulz pour le cent chilling for dé
the hundreth of your de voz pommes de hundred of yor
pepines. renette. pepins.
The Cost. Le fruit. Dé Cost.
Here ye, fayre Escoutez belle fille, Hiér y, fêr mêd, Ouil
mayde: Will you les voulez vous auoir y hàf, dem for
haue them for pour vingt deniers le twenty pens dé
twenty pence the Cent. hundred?
hundreth.
Ayles. Alix. êl.
I am at one word. Ie suis à vn mot Ey am at ouon
ouord.
 The Cost. Le fruit. Dé Cost.
Go to, you shall haue Or sus vous les aurez Go tou, you chàl hàf
them: dem.
Where will you haue Où les mettrez vous? Houêr ouil y hàf
them. dem.
Ayles. Alix. êl.
Put them in myne Mettez les en mon Pout dem in mein
apurne. deuanteau. êpurne.
The Cost. Le fruit. Dé Cost.
One, Two, Vne, Deux, Ouon, Tou,
Three, Foure, Trois, Quatre, Trij, Faòr,
Fiue, Sixe, Cinq, Six, Feìf, Six,
Seuen, Eight, Sept, Huit, Seuin, êct,
Nyne, Ten, Neuf, Dix, Nein, Ten,
Eleuen, Twelfe, Onze, Douze, Aleuin, Touelf,
Thirten. Treize, Tertin.
Foureten. Quatorze, Fòrtin.
Fiften. Quinze. Fiftin.
Sixten. Saize. Sixtin.
Seuenten. Dixsept. Seuentin.
Eighten. Dixhuit. êcttin.
Ninten. Dixneuf. Neintin.
Twenty. Vint. Touenty.
One and twenty. vint & vn. Ouon and touenty.
Two and twenty. vint & deux. Tou and touenty.
Three and twenty. vint & trois. Trìj and touenty.
Foure and twenty. vint & quatre. Faòr and touenty.
Fiue and twenty. vint & vinq. Feif and touenty.
And here be foure, Et en voyla quatre, And hiér by faòr,
whiche makes fiue qui font Cinq vints, & houitch mêkes feif
score and foure. quatre. scòr, and faòr.
 Ayles. Alix. êl.
You shall geue me Vous m'en donnerez You chàl gif my ouon
one aboue. vne par dessus. abauf.
The Cost. Le fruit. Dé Cost.
Hold, here is, for Tenez, voyla pour Hauld, hiér is for
you: vous: you:
As you shall finde Comme vous les As you chàl feìnd
them, come agayne. trouuerez reuenez. dem, com again.
Ailes. Alix. êl.
So I will. Ainsi feray-ie So ey ouil.

The Draper. Le Drapier. Dé Drap.

What lacke ye? Que vous defaut-il? Houat lak y?
What doe ye buy. Qu'achattez vous. Houat dou y beìj?
What will you haue. Que voulez vous Houat ouil you hàf,
auoir.
What will you buy. Que voullez vous Houat ouil you beìj.
acchetter?
What please you to Que vous plaist il Houat pléés you tou
buy. acheter. beìj.
What please you to Que vous plaist il Houat pléés you hàf.
haue. auoir.
What seeke y. Que cerchez vous. Houat sìjk y.
Will you haue any Voullez vous auoir du Ouil y hàf any clàs.
cloth. drap?
Come in, I will show Entrez, ie vous en Com in, ey ouil chaù
you some. monstreray. you som.
Come hether Ser. Venez ça Monsieur, Com heder Ser.
Come in, you shall Entrez, vous aurez Com in, you chàl hàf
haue good cheape. bon marché. goud tchéép.
See if I haue any Regardez si i'ay Sìj if ey hàf any ting
thing that likes you. quelque chose qui dat leiks you.
vous duise:
I will vse you well. Ie vous feray bon Ey ouil ùs you oueil.
marché.
You shall finde me as Vous me trouuerez You chàl feind my as
reasonable, or more, autant, ou plus rêsonable, or mòr as
as any other, raisonable qu'vn any oder,
autre,
you shall see good vous voirrez de you chàl sij goud
wares. bonne marchandise. ouêrs.
Come in, if you Entrez, s'il vous Com in, if you pléés.
please. plaist.
Androw. André. Andro.
God be here. Dieu soit ceans. God by hiér.
The Drap. Le Drapier. Dé Drap.
Well come Ser. Bien venu Monsieur. Ouel com Ser.
Androw. André. Andro.
Haue you any good Auez vous de bon Hàf you any goud
broade cloth. drap large. bràd clàs.
Haue you any fine Auez vous du Carisie Hàf you any feìn
Caresie. bien fin. kêrsi.
Haue you any Auez vous du Hàf you any kêrsi
Caresie Flanders creseau tainture de Flanders deìj.
deye. Flandres.
Haue you any Auez vous du Hàf you any Cotton.
Cottun. rouleau.
Any Fryse. De la frise. Any freìs.
Any rugette. De la reuesche. Any rouguet.
Any stamell. De l'Estamet. Any Stamél.
Any frisadoe. De la frisade. Any freisàdo.
Any sardge. De la sarge. Any sêrge.
Any skarlatte. De l'Escarlate. Any skêrlét.
Any veluet. Du veloux. Any vêluet.
Any granadoe silke. De la soye de Any grenàdo silk.
Grenade.
Any Spanishe silke. De la soye Any Spanich silk.
d'Espaigne.
Any satten. Du satin. Any saten.
Any damaske. Du damas. Any Damask.
Any taffettey. Du taffetas. Any tafeté.
Any sarsenet. Du tierselin. Any sarsenet.
Any grosgrayne. Du gros-grain. Any gròsgrain.
Any chamelet. Du camelot. Any tchamelet.
Any worstede. De l'Ostade. Any ouorsted.
Any mokadoe. De la Moucade. Any mokado.
Any braunched Du veloux figuré. Any branchd veluet.
veluet.
Any tuffte taffetey. Du taffetas Any touft tafeté.
mouchetté.
Any Welshe plaine. Du demy drap. Any ouêltch plêin.
Any fustiane. De la futaine. Any fustian.
Any buckeren. Du bou-gueren. Any boukeren.
Any sacke cloth. Du droguet. Any sak clàs.
Any holland. De la hollande. Any holland.
Any trype veluet. De la tripe de veloux. Any treìp vêluet.
Any tuffte veluet. Du veloux moucheté. Any touft vêluet.
The Drap. Le drap. Dé Drap.
What collour will ye De quelle couleur Houat coleur ouil y
haue. voulez vous auoir. hàf.
Androw. André. Andro.
What collour haue De quelle couleur Houat couleur hàf y.
ye. auez vous.
 The Drap. Le drap. Dé Drap.
I haue fayre whitte. I'ay de beau blanc. Ey hàf fêr houeit.
Blacke. Du noir Blak.
Gray. Du gris. Grê.
Fayre French taney. De beau tanay de Fêr Franch tàné.
France.
Violet. Du violet. Veielet.
Greene. Du verd. Griin.
Mingled collour. De la couleur Mingled couleur.
meslée.
Sheepes collour. De la couleur de Chips couleur.
brebis.
yallow. Du iaulne. yêlo.
Blue. Du bleu. Blùù.
Orenge collour. De l'orengé. Oringe couleur.
Fayre straw collour. De belle couleur de Fére stràà couleur.
foirre.
Fayre purple collour. De belle couleur de Fêr purple, couleur.
pourpre.
I haue of all collours, I'en ay de toutes Ey hàf of àl coleurs,
and of all prices. couleurs, & à tous and of àl preices.
prix.
Androw. André. Andro.
Showe me some Monstrez moy de Chaù my som fêr
fayre darke greene if beau verd-brun si dark grijn if you hàf
you haue any. vous en auez. any.
The Drap. Le drap. Dé Drap.
yea forsoth, I haue Ouy Monsieur, i'en yés farsoùs, ey hàf
that which is very aye de fort beau & dat houitch is very
fayre, and good. bon. fêr, and goud.
There is no better in Il n'y en a point de Dêr is no better in
this towne. meilleur en ceste dis tòn.
 ville.
It is of good syse. Il est de bonne laise. It is of goud seìs.
Vew it well. voiez le bien Veùù it ouel.
Did you euer see En veites vous iamais Did you euer sij
better. de meilleur? better.
Androw. André. Andro.
I haue sene better, I'en ay veu de Ey hàf sijn beter, and
and worse also. meilleur & de pire ouors àlso.
aussi.
Haue you any better. En auez vous point Hàf you any beter.
de meilleur.
The Drap. Le drap. Dé Drap.
yes marye: But it is Sy ay bien mais il est ys màry: Bout it is of
of more higher price. de plus haut prix. mòr heier preis.
Androw. André. And.
Let me haue the Monstrez le moy Let my hàf dé seit of
sight of it. it.
The Drap. Le drap. Dé Drap.
Here is of the best Voi-là du meilleur Hier is of dé best dat
you did euer see. que vous veites you did euer sij.
onques.
Andro. André. And.
It is good in did: Il est bon It is goud in did:
vrayement:
But showe me of the Mais monstrez moy Bout chaù my of dé
very best that you du tres meilleur que very best dat you
haue. vous aiez. hàf.
The Drap. Le drap. Dé Drap.
It shalbe done. Hold, Il sera fait, tenez It chàl be don.
here is of the best voyla du meilleur Haùld, hiér is of dé
that I haue. que i'aye. best dat ey hàf.
 Androw. André. And.
If you haue no Sy vous n'en auez de If you hàf no beter,
better, you haue meilleur, vous n'auez you hàf nòting for
nothing for me. rien pour moy. my.
The Drap. Le drap. Dé Drap.
What say you to this Que dites vous de Houat sê you tou dis
same. cestuy-cy? sêm.
Androw. André. Andro.
It is indifferent. So, Il est indifferent, It is indifferent. So,
So. tellement so.
quellement.
The Drap. Le drap. Dé Drap.
I haue no better. Ie n'en ay point de Ey hàf no beter.
meilleur.
The collour is sure. La couleur en est Dé couleur is sùr.
seure,
It is in grayne. Il est taint en graine Dé couleur is in
gràin.
It will not stayne. Il ne d'eschargera It ouìl not stêin.
point.
And. André. And.
How sell you the Combien en vendez Haù sell you dé yêrd
yard of it? vous la verge. of it?
How do you sell the Qu'en vendez vous la Haù dou you sel dé
yard. verge. yêrd.
How is it the yard. Combien la verge. Haù is it dé yêrd.
What shall coast me Que m'en coustera Houat chàl còst my
the elle? l'aune. dé êl.
What shall I pay for Qu'en payeray ie de Houat chàl ey pê for
the yard. la verge. dé yêrd.
What shall I geue for Qu'en donneray ie de Houat chàl ey gif for
the elle. l'aune. dé êl.
What is worth the Que vault la verge Houat is ouors dé
yarde of this cloth. de ce drap. yêrd of dis clàs.
The Drap. Le Drap. Dé Drap.
At one word, I would A vn mot ie le At ouon ouord, ey
sell it fayne: for voudrois vendre ouold sel it fêin, for
twelue shillinges and douze solz huit twelue chelins and
eight pence the yard. deniers la verge. êct pens de yêrd.
I sell it for fiften Ie le vends, quinze Ey sel it for fiftin
shillings the yard. solz la verge. chelins dé yêrd.
It shall caost you Il vous coustera It chàl còst you sixtin
sixtene shillings, and saize souds six chelins, and six pens
sixe pence the elle. deniers l'aune, dé êl.
you shall pay a Vous en payrez vn You chàl pê à mark
marke for the yarde marke de la verge. for dé yêrd, of dé
of the same. sêm.
it is well worth Il vaut bien onze It is ouel ouors
eleuen shillings the souds la verge. aleuin chelins dé
yard. yêrd.
you shall geue me Vous m'en donnerez You chàl gif my
twenty shillinges for vint souds de la touenty chelins for
the yard. verge. dé yêrd.
Androw. André. Andro.
It is to much. C'Est trop. It is tou much.
you are to deare. Vous estes trop cher. You àr tou dièr.
you hold your wares Vous tenez vostre you haùld yor ouêrs,
to high. denrée trop haut. tou heij.
The Drap. Le drap. Dé Drap.
What is it worth of Que vaut-il de vostre Houat is it ouors of
your money. argent. yor monné.
Androw. André. Andro.
I will geue nine I'en donneray neuf Ey ouil gif nein
shillings for the yard. souds de la verge. chelins for dé yêrd.
 The Drap. Le drap. Dé Drap.
you offer me not that Vous ne m'en offrez You òffer my not dat
it caost me. point ce qu'il me it còst my.
couste.
What will you geue. Qu'en baillerez vous. Houat ouil you gif.
What will ye geue Qu'en voulez-vous Houat ouil y gif for.
for. bailler.
Tell me a good word, Dittes moy vn bon Tel my a goud ouord,
that I may sell. mot à fin que ie dat ey mê sêll.
vende.
Androw. André. Andro.
I will geue ten I'en bailleray dix Ey ouil gif ten chelins
shillinges sixe pence soudz six deniers de six pens for dé yêrd.
for the yard. la verge.
The Drap. Le drap. Dé Drap.
I can not sell it for Ie ne le peux vendre Ey can not sêl it fòr
that price. à ce prix dat preis.
you offer me to vous m'offrez trop de you òfer my tou
much lost. perte. mutch làst.
Androw. André. Andro.
Shall I haue it for L'auray-ie pour Chàl ey hàf it for
foureten shillinges. quatorze souds. fòrtin chelins.
The Drap. Le drap. Dé Drap.
No truely. Non certes. Nò trùlé.
I should be a loser I'y serois perdant Il Ey choùld by a lòser
by, it caost me more. me couste bey, it còst my mòr.
d'auantage.
It is better worth. Il vaut d'auantage. It is beter ouors.
Androw. And. Andro.
It is worth no more. C'est ce qu'il vaut. It is ouors no mòr.
Will ye take sixten En voulez vous Ouil y tàk sixtin,
shillinges for the prendre saize souds chelins for dé yêrd.
yard. de la verge.
The Drap. Le drap. Dé Drap.
It caost me more Il me couste plus It còst my mòr den
then you offer me. que vous ne you òffer my.
m'Offrez.
Androw. And. Andro.
You shall not sell it Vous ne le vendrez you chàl not sel it at
at your owne word. pas tout à vostre yor ouòn ouord.
mot.
The Drap. Le drap. Dé Drap.
I could sell it for no Ie ne le sçaurois Ey caùld sel it for no
lesse. vendre à moins: les.
But bycause I am Mais par ce que ie Bout bycàs ey am
desirous to sell: I will desire de vendre Ie desireus tou sel: Eyl
bate out a shilling of rabattray vn soud de bét aut a chelin of
my price. mon prix mey preis.
Androw. And. Andro.
At one word, I will A vn mot ie n'en At ouón ourd, ey ouil
geue but seuenten donneray que dix- gif bout seuentin
shillinges for. sept souds. chelins for.
The Drap. Le drap. Dé Drap.
It is not mine for Il n'est pas mien à ce It is not mein for dat
that price. prix, toutesfois vous preis: Neuerdéles,
Neuerthelesse, you l'aurez. you chàl hàf it.
shal haue it.
Haw much will ye Combien en voullez Haù mutch ouil y hàf
haue of it. vous. of it.
Androw. And. Andro.
I must haue three Il m'en faut trois Ey must hàf trij êls
elles and a half. aulnes & demye and a hàlf.
 The Drap. Le drap. Dé Drap.
You shall haue what Vous aurez ce qu'il You chàl hàf houat
you please. vous plaira. you pléés.
One. Empreud. Ouon.
Two. Deux. Toù.
Three, and a halfe Trois & demye à Trij, and a hàlf goud
good measure. bonne mesure. mésur.
Androw. And. Andro.
Make good measure Faites bonne mesure Mêk goud mésur ey
I pray. ie vous prie. prê.
The Drap. Le drap. Dé Drap.
Measure it your selfe Mesurez-le vous Mésur it yor self if
if you please. mesme s'il vous you pléés.
plaist.
Androw. And. Andro.
It is needelesse, I Il n'en est point de It is nijdles, Ey ouòld
would trust you in besoin. Ie me fierois trust you in a gréter
greater matter. à vous en plus mater.
grande chose.
How much must you Combien vous faut il Haù mutch must you
haue in all. pour le tout. hàf in àl.
The Drap. Le drap. Dé Drap.
Three elles, and a Les trois aulnes & Dé trij êls, and a
halfe, come to foure demye font quatre hàlf, com tou faòr
yardes, and two third verges deux tiers, yêrds, and toù têrd
partes of the yard: ainsi à dixsept souds parts of dé yêrd: So
So at seuenten la verge, le tout vaut at seuintin chelins dé
shillinges the yard, trois liures dixneuf yerd, dé haòl, coms
the whole, comes to souds quatre tou trij paund neintin
three pound nineten deniers. chelins and faòr
shilinges and foure pens.
pence.
 Androw. André. Andro.
You say true: Vous dites vray You sê tru:
Here is your money. Voila vostre argent. Hiér is yor monné.
The Drap. Le drap. Dé Drap.
God geue me a good Dieu me doint bonne God gif my a goud
handsell, étrene. handsél,
I do buy your I'achette vostre ey dou beì yor
custome: challandise costum:
I hope that you shall I'Espere que vous Ey hòp dat you chàl
bare me good lucke, me porterez bon bêr my goud lok:
and that I shall haue heur, et que i'auray and dat ey chàl hàf
more of your money. d'auantage de vostre mòr of yor monné.
argent.
Androw. André. Andro.
Dout not of is: Fare N'en doutez point à Daut not of it: Far
ye well Syr. Dieu Sire. ouel Syr.
The Drap. Le drap. Dé Drap.
God be wy Syr, at A Dieu Monsieur à God bouey Ser, at
your vostre yor
commaundement. commandement. commaundement.
Androw. And. Andro.
But I pray Syr. Mais ie vous prie Bout ey prê you Ser.
Sire.
Could you not mache Sçauriez vous Coùld you not match
this collour? assortir ceste dis colleur.
couleur.
The Drap. Le drap. Dé Drap.
yes forsoth, I can: Ouy Monsieur, Ie le Ye fersoùs, Ey can:
peux:
We must see: Il faut voir, Ouy must sij:
Let me see: Here is Que ie voye, Voila du Let my sij, Hiér is dé
the nearest that I plus sortable que nierest dat ey hàf.
haue. i'ay.
Androw. And. Andro.
This like me not. Cestuy-cy ne me Dis leik my not.
rauient point.
The Drap. Le dra Dé Drap.
I haue none other. Ie n'en ay point Ey hàf non oder.
d'autre.
Androw. And. ANdro.
Fare ye well then. A Dieu donc. Far ouel den.

The Fishmonger. Le poissonnier. Dé Fichmonguer.

What doe you lake. Dequoy auez-vous Houat dy lak.
affaire?
Ra. Ra. Ra.
What fishe haue you. Quel poisson auez Houat fich hàf you.
vous.
The Fish. Le Pois. Dé Fich.
I haue good salt fish. I'ay de bon poisson Ey hàf goud sàlt fich.
salé.
Soles Des soles. Sòòls.
A good plaise. Vne bonne plis. A goud plês.
Viuers. Des viures. Veiuers.
Rotches, or Des rouges. Rotches, or
Gornettes. Gornettes.
Whittinges. Des merlenc. Houeittings.
Waisters. Des huistres. Ouêsters.
Thurnebacke. De la Raye. Tornebak.
Smeltes. De l'eperlenc. Smelts.
Redde hering. Du hareng sor. Red hering.
Whitte hering. Du hareng blanc. Houeit hering.
Shrimpes. De la creuette. Cherimps.
A loupster. Vn hommar. A laùpster.
Crabbes. Des escreuices. Cràbs.
A picke. Vn brochet. A pik.
A pickerell. Vn brocheton. A pikerel.
A millers thumbe. Vn gouion. A milers tombe.
A saumond. Vn saumond. A Sàmon.
A lamproye. Vne lamproye. A làmproê.
Elles. Des anguilles. Iìles.
A dorey. Vne dorée. A doré.
A makerell. Vn maquereau. A makrél.
A trouette. Vne trouite. A traut.
Smal lamproyes. Des lamprions. Smàl làmproês.
Moskels. Des mousles. Mouscles.
Cockelles. Des coques. Cocles.
A tenche. Vne tenche. A tentch.
A carpe. Vne carpe. A kêrp.
Kempes. Des pimperneaux. Kémps.
A whale. Vne ballaine. A Houàl.
And of sondry other Et de plusieurs And of sondré òder
fishes. autres poissons. fiches.
Ra. Ra. Ra.
What shall I pay for Que payeray-ie pour Houat chàl ey pê for
a quarteron of vn quarteron a kouartern of
waisters, for this side d'huistres, pour ce ouêsters: for dis seìd
of salt fish. costé de poisson of sàlt fich.
salé,
For this Thurnbacke, Pour cette raye & For dis tornbac, and
and for half a pour demy cent for hàlf a hondred of
hundreth of smelts. d'Eperlenc. smelts.
The Fish. Le Poisson. Dé Fich.
Will you haue but Ne voulez vous auoir Ouil you hàf bout
one word. qu'vn mot. ouon ouord
Ra. Ra. Ra.
No. Non. Nò.
The Fish. Le poiss. Dé Fich.
you shall paye eight Vous en paierez huit you chàl pê êèct
grotes for. gros. grates for.
Ra. Ra. Ra.
I shall not: I will pay, Non feray, ie n'en Ey chàl not: Eyl pê
but fiue grotes for. paieray que cinq bout feif gràtes for.
gros.
The Fish. Le poiss. Dé Fich.
you come not to buy. vous ne venez point you com not tou beì.
pour acheter.
Ra. Ra. Ra.
But I doe: But you Sy fais, mais vous Bout ey dou: Bout
will sell your waeres voulez vendre vostre you ouil sel yor ouérs
to deare. denrée trop chere. tou diér.
Will you take money. Voulez vous prendre Ouil y tàk mey
mon argent. monné.
The Fish. Le poiss. Dé Fich.
yes, with other: Ouy, auec d'autre: yé, ouis oder:
A word wye Syr. vn mot auec vous A ourd ouéy: Sèr.
Sire.
I will buy your I'acheteray vostre Ey ouil beì yor
custume. chalandise. costum.
Take all for two Prenez le tout pour Tàk àl for tou
shillinges. deux solz. chelins.
Ra. Ra. Ra.
I will pay no more Ie n'en payeray non Eyl pê no mor for.
for. plus.
 The Fish. Le Poiss. Dé Fich.
I should be a looser I'y perdrois: Iettez Ey choùld by a louser
by: Cast th'other two les autres deux by: Cast toder tou
pence. deniers. pens.
Ra Ra. Ra.
I can not. Ie ne peux. Ey can not.
The Fish. Le Poiss. Dé Fich.
Take it in Gods Prenez le au nom de Tàk it in Gods nêm.
name. Dieu.
Ra. Ra. Ra.
Hold here is your Tenez, voy-la vostre Haùld, hiér is yor
monney. payement. monné.
Fare you well. A Dieu. Far y ouel.

The Butcher Le Boucher Dé Boutcher.

What doe you buy? Qu'achetez vous. Houat dy beì.
Come hether Syr. Venez ça Monsieur. Com heder Sér.
What will you haue? Que voulez vous Houat ouil y hàf.
auoir.
What lake you? Dequoy auez vous Houat lak y.
affaire.
Simon. Simon. Seimon.
A fatte shippes flesh. Vne chair de mouton A fat chips flech
gras.
A side of porke. Vn costé de A seìd of pork.
pourceau.
This breast of beefe. C'este poitrine de Dis brést of bif.
beuf.
A quarter of vealle. Vn quartier de veau. A kouarter of of véél.
A nettes toung. Vne langue de beuf. a nets tòng.
This roumpe of C'este queu de beuf. Dis ròmp of bif.
beefe.
A calfes plucke. Vne couroy de veau. a calfs pluk.
Calfes feete. Des pieds de veau. Càlfes fit.
Sheepes feete. Des pieds de Chips fit.
mouton.
A sheepes head. Vne teste de a chips hed.
mouton.
A sheepe gather. vne couroye de a chips gàder.
mouton.
A calfes leagge. vne iambe de veau. a càlfs lég.
A shoulder of vne espaule de a choùlder of
motton. mouton. moutton.
A loygne of veale. vne longe de veau. a loueìn of véél.
A quarter of lambe. vn quartier d'agneau. a kouarter of làmb.
The butch. Le bou. Dé bout.
I haue the beast I'ay la meilleure Ey hàf de best mét
meate in this towne viande de c'este ville, in dis tòòn, and dé
and the fatest. & la plus grasse. fatest.
Choose. Choisissez. Tchoùs.
Simon. Simon. Seimon.
How sell you the Que vendez vous le Haù sèl y dé ouèct of
waight of this beef. poids de ce beuf. dis bif.
The bu. Le bou. Dé bout.
Foureten pence the Quatorze deniers le Fortin pens dé ouèct,
waight if you will. poids, si vous voulez. if you ouil.
Simon. Symon. Seimon.
I will pay for it twelfe I'en paieray douze Eil pê for it touelf
pence at a word. deniers à vn mot. pens at a ouord.
The butch. Le bou. Dé bout.
You must come Il vous faut monter You must com heier:
higher: plus haut
For my wares is not Car ma marchandise For mey ouêr is not
leane: See in an n'est point maigre: léén: Sìi in an oder
other place, and if voiez en vn autre plàs, and if you dou
you doe finde, fatter lieu & si vous feind, fater flech den
flesh then myne you trouuez de la chair meìn, you chàl hàf it
shall haue it at your plus grasse que la at yor preis.
price. mienne vous l'aurez
à vostre prix.
Simon. Simon. Seimon.
I am a man one at Ie suis homme à vn Ey am a man at
word. mot. ouon ouord.
The Butch. Le bou. Dé Bout.
Take the wares Prenez la Tàk dé ouêr ouis aut
without money, and marchandise sans monné, and as you
as you shall finde it, argent, & comme chàl feind it, you chàl
you shall pay me for. vous la trouuerez pê my for.
vous paierez.
Simon. Symon. Seimon.
I thanke you: Take Ie vous remercye, Ey tànk y: Tàk mey
my money if you prenez mon argent si monné if you mê.
may. vous pouuez.
The Butch. Le bou. Dé Bout.
You shall haue it, for vous l'aurez pour You chàl hàf it, for
the old acquaintance l'amour de la vielle dé auld ackouintàns
sake: accointance: sêk:
Will you haue all the vouléz vous auoir Ouil y hàf àl dé haùld
whole side. tout le costé. seìd?
Simon. Simon. Seimon.
Yes, what doth it Ouy, combien est-ce Eys, houat dous it
waight? qu'il poise? ouèèct?
 The Butch. le bou. Dé Bout.
It waightes, fiue Il poise, Cinq poids, It ouèèctes, toù
waightes, tho deux liures & demye paonds, and a hàlf,
poundes, and a halfe à bon poidz. goud ouèèct.
good waight.
Simon. Symon. Seimon.
Hold, here is fiue Tenez, voy-la cinq Haùld, hiér is fef
shillinges and foure soulz quatre deniers, chelins and fòr pens.
pence
I pray GOD to graunt Ie prye Dieu qu'il Ey prê God tou grànt
you a good market. vous doint vn bon you a goud market.
marché.
The Butch. Le bou. Dé Bout.
Fare you well brother A Dieu mon frere Far y ouel broder
Simon. Symon. Seimon.
At your à vostre At yor
commaundement. commandement. commaundement.
 At the table. A la Table. At dé tabel.

T He maister.
The Mistresse. L E maistre.
La Maistresse. D é mêster.
Dé mistres.
The neighbour. Le voisin. Dé nêbeur.
The schoolemaister. Le maistre d'Escole. Dé scoùlmêster.
The sonne. Le filz. Dé son.
The daughter. La fille, Dé dààter.
The man seruaunt. Le seruiteur. Dé man seruant.
The mayde seruaunt. La seruante. Dé mêd seruant.
The Maister. Le maistre. Dé mêster.
Dicke. Richard. Dik.
Richard. Richard. Rithard.
Anone forsoth. What Tantost pour vray: Anen for sòùs. Houat
is your pleasure. Quel est vostre is yor plêsur?
plaisir?
The Maist. Le mais. Dé mêst.
Goe tell my va dire à mon voisin Go tel mey nêèbeur
neighbour roper, that le cordier que ie le roper, dat ey prê him
I pray him to come prie de venir demain tou com tou màro
to morow to dine disner auec moy, & tou deìn ouis my:
with me: And from de-là, t'en va prier le and from dèns, Gò
thence. Go thou Maistre d'escole de dau deseìr mey sons
desire my sonnes mon filz de nous scoùl mêster, tou bêr
schoolemaister, to faire compagnye. vs company.
beare vs compaignie.
Richard. Rich. Ri.
Well Syr. Bien Monsieur. Ouel Sér.
Welcome to Our Bookstore - The Ultimate Destination for Book Lovers
Are you passionate about books and eager to explore new worlds of
knowledge? At our website, we offer a vast collection of books that
cater to every interest and age group. From classic literature to
specialized publications, self-help books, and children’s stories, we
have it all! Each book is a gateway to new adventures, helping you
expand your knowledge and nourish your soul
Experience Convenient and Enjoyable Book Shopping Our website is more
than just an online bookstore—it’s a bridge connecting readers to the
timeless values of culture and wisdom. With a sleek and user-friendly
interface and a smart search system, you can find your favorite books
quickly and easily. Enjoy special promotions, fast home delivery, and
a seamless shopping experience that saves you time and enhances your
love for reading.
Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and
personal growth!

ebookgate.com