‘Intended’ and ‘implemented’ HRM: the missing linchpin in strategic human resource management research

We argue that inconclusive findings in the SHRM literature regarding the relationship between HRM systems and organizational performance may result primarily from methodological weaknesses and a failure of researchers to distinguish between HR practices intended by the organizations and those actually implemented. Rather than relying upon a single respondent per organization as is the norm, we contrast reports of both managers and non-managers from inside and outside HR departments to highlight differences between intended and implemented HRM. The findings, arrived at with the help of 195 interviews, 508 questionnaire responses and several company documents, support our expectation: implemented HRM may be substantially different from intended HRM; consistent implementation increases employee satisfaction with HRM, which is positively related to organizational performance. The current study thus highlights new factors that require attention in developing HR–performance analyses and also suggests that a mere imitation of HRM in the hopes of improving organizational performance creates no value. It is crucial that HR departments and managers remain committed and supportive to the development of effective HRM systems by focusing upon actual ‘implementation’ within their organizations.