• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Human resource management journal >Exploring necessary conditions in HRM research: Fundamental issues and methodological implications
【24h】

Exploring necessary conditions in HRM research: Fundamental issues and methodological implications

机译：探索人力资源管理研究中的必要条件：基本问题和方法论影响

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Although the notion that HRM activities are necessary conditions for achieving certain outcomes is widespread in HRM research, most empirical studies follow an additive sufficiency logic. That is, they analyse whether HRM activities increase an outcome, assuming that they can compensate for one another. However, this does not correspond to the idea of necessity where single HRM activities are required for an outcome to occur and cannot be compensated when absent. We discuss the differences between sufficiency and necessity logics in terms of theory, methodology, and practical relevance. Also, we suggest using a new approach and analysis technique in HRM research: necessary condition analysis. We illustrate the application of the method by analysing data on the relationship between ability-, motivation-, and opportunity-enhancing HRM practices (i.e., high-performance work practices) and employee performance. This illustrative example highlights that necessary conditions require particular theoretical attention and suitable empirical methods. The paper concludes by showing the value of studying necessary conditions, because such analyses allow straightforward recommendations to be given of high relevance for HRM practice, which differ from and add to recommendations based on additive sufficiency logic and analyses.
机译：虽然HRM活动是实现某些结果的必要条件，但在HRM研究中普遍存在，大多数实证研究遵循添加剂充足的逻辑。也就是说，他们分析了HRM活动是否增加了结果，假设它们可以互相弥补。然而，这与必要性的概念对应于出现结果所需的单个HRM活动，并且在缺席时不能得到补偿。我们在理论，方法和实际相关性方面讨论了充足性和必要性逻辑之间的差异。此外，我们建议使用HRM研究中的新方法和分析技术：必要的条件分析。我们通过分析数据，分析了对能力，动机和机会之间的关系（即，高性能工作实践）和员工绩效之间的关系来说明该方法的应用。该说明性示例强调了必要条件需要特别的理论关注和合适的经验方法。本文通过展示了研究必要条件的价值来结束，因为这种分析允许对HRM实践的高相关性，从而与基于添加剂充足逻辑和分析的建议不同。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号