One of the more fundamental aspects of the ongoing debate about the added value of HRM relates to ‘best’ practice versus ‘best‐fit’. Best practice suggests the universal success of certain HR practices, while best‐fit acknowledges the relevant impact of contextual factors. We argue that differences in embeddedness and in institutional settings between, for example, countries affect the nature of HRM. To understand this phenomenon, we are in need of additional theory. In this article we will use the theory of new institutionalism as a better way to understand the shaping of HR policies and practices in different settings. After a concise review of the latest debates in the area of strategic HRM, in which the resource‐based view is the dominant perspective, we turn to an analysis of HRM in different institutional settings, which suggests the need for additional theory: ie new institutionalism. We offer propositions to explain the impact of different institutional mechanisms, including coercive, normative and mimetic ones, on the shaping of HR policies and practices in organisations. The remainder of the article then focuses on possible implications for practitioners, theoretical implications for future research, and challenges for strategic HRM.
Paauwe et al. (Tue,) studied this question.