人力资源管理心理学研究案例外文翻译资料

The case for psychology in human resource management research

Abstract

A recent literature has developed criticising the growing influence of a psychological perspective within research on human resource management (HRM). This paper addresses and rebuts the various criticisms and outlines the positive contribution of work and organisational psychology to HRM research. In looking to the future and the continuing development of HRM research, we argue that there is a need to engage in research that is multidisciplinary, multilevel, multistakeholder, and multimethod. We propose a number of research topics that meet these criteria and to which work and organisational psychology can offer a distinctive contribution. We call for other disciplines to make a more positive contribution to ensure that HRM research continues to flourish.

一、 FRAMING THE PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE ON HRM

Analysis of the evolution of HRM helps to set the role of psychology in a wider context. Contemporary HRM can trace its origins to three main sources. The first is the longstanding tradition of theory, research, and application of industrial relations and personnel management. For much of the 20th century, collective bargaining, participation in decisions, and the role of employee voice were central concerns for researchers and practitioners alike. However, as Kochan, Katz, and McKersie (1986) argued, industrial relations were transformed, initially in the United States and subsequently in most advanced economies, by a shift in power, partly facilitated by managements espoused focus on mutual gains, an approach that also heralded the arrival of contemporary HRM.What is not acceptable is misplaced and overgeneralised criticism of psychologically informed HRM research that ignores its contribution, not least to the improvement of workers well‐being. In what follows, we therefore address and rebut general criticisms of psychological research in the broad field of HRM before offering an alternative perspective highlighting the distinctive contribution of psychology to HRM research.

二、COUNTERING THE CRITICISMS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN HRM

To counter the criticisms directed at psychological HRM research, we will identify and describe each major criticism, evaluate it, and provide a countercase. We acknowledge that some criticisms have validity with respect to some psychological HRM research. The danger lies in general statements about all W/O psychological research. It is also important to recognise that in singling out psychological HRM research for criticism, other disciplines, notably economics, are also open to some of the criticisms discussed below.

Attempts to categorise the various critiques of the role of psychology in HRM research risk setting artificial boundaries. Bearing this in mind, we address four substantive areas of criticism of psychological research in HRM. These are unitarism and managerialism, individualism and decontextualisation, the psychologists view of the worker, and positivism allied to quantitative research. We believe the first two classes of criticism are more extensive and more pervasive.

2.1 Unitarism and managerialism

We agree that some HRM research by W/O psychologists on topics such as high performance working, commitment, and talent management can reflect a unitarist approach. However, it is important to appreciate that the psychological approach is not unitarist per se. Indeed, there is a broad range of psychological theories (e.g., social identity theory, psychological contract theory, and emotional labour theory) that analyse the competing interests, beliefs, and behaviours of different stakeholders.

We would hope that much psychological HRM research is useful to management. Nonetheless, helping to improve selection or training can benefit both the organisation and its employees. Unions invariably call for more investment in training, and improving training activity is a far cry from being antiunion. Criticism of antiunionism also ignores psychological research on topics such as participation (Heller, Pusic, Strauss, amp; Wilpert, 1998) and the role of industrial democracy in job design (Emery amp; Thorsrud, 1976). Much HRM‐related research by W/O psychologists is concerned, directly or indirectly, with workers experience of HRM and their well‐being and can be critical of a management stance that ignores this issue. Indeed, Markoulli et al. (2017) note that “experiencing HRM” is the fastest growing area of HRM research. In summary, although psychological research on HR practices may be useful for managers, and some HR research undertaken by W/O psychologists can support the interests of management, this does not in itself make W/O psychological research on HRM in general unitarist, managerialist, or antiunion.

2.2 Decontextualisation and individualism

Another charge is that psychological research with its focus on the individual and an individual level of analysis decontextualises HRM, neglecting the wider institutional context. For example, Thompson (2011, p. 11) suggests that “structural equation modelling cannot compensate for the absence of any serious account of the structural constraints of changing forms of capitalist political economy operating on HR practices in the workplace.” We agree. But because this was never the intention behind a statistical technique favoured by some psychologists, this criticism is misplaced.

The criticism that HRM research by W/O psychologists adopts an individualistic perspectiveoften seems to come from those whose own theoretical and research interests lie

剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料

英语译文共 3 页，剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料

资料编号：[607456]，资料为PDF文档或Word文档，PDF文档可免费转换为Word