The Kianto, 2016,p.47). However, the latter aspect, the effects

The selection, by Delaney &Huselid ( 2013,p.969)of HRM practices considered its relevance for thedevelopment of the knowledge and skills of employees and the motivation to usethese skills, considering that the company’s strategy (business or production)can only be the employees use their knowledge and skills.

Combining thereduction of protection measures with the development of these characteristicsof the flexible production systems create the conditions necessary forInnovative HCMs allow effective economic performance. Minbaeva (2013,p.390),shares the same concept of high-performance work practices adopted by Delaney& Huselid ( 2013,p.969), that is, practices that enable the acquisition anddevelopment of knowledge, motivating the employees to use them to achieve thestrategic objectives. The investigations by Minbaeva (2013,p.390), as well asconcluded by the impact of HRM in organizational performance, also showed thatthe selection of practices is not even though both researchers use the sameconcept of HRM practices.

Best services for writing your paper according to Trustpilot

Premium Partner
From $18.00 per page
4,8 / 5
4,80
Writers Experience
4,80
Delivery
4,90
Support
4,70
Price
Recommended Service
From $13.90 per page
4,6 / 5
4,70
Writers Experience
4,70
Delivery
4,60
Support
4,60
Price
From $20.00 per page
4,5 / 5
4,80
Writers Experience
4,50
Delivery
4,40
Support
4,10
Price
* All Partners were chosen among 50+ writing services by our Customer Satisfaction Team

The relationship between HRM and organizationalperformance is limited, such as the diversity of practices, which does notallow a comparative benchmark. This is a great obstacle to the accumulation ofdata and the generalization of the conclusions (Guest, 2014,p.67). According to Park & Shaw(2013,p.

66), the HRM practices that received researchers were: employeeparticipation, empowerment and job redesign, including systems based on teams,training, compensation, and performance. Minbaeva (2013,p.390), for example,listed a set of sixteen practices, and then to reduce them to the essential,which comes down to job security, selection, compensation (associated withperformance), information sharing, participation and empowerment, teamwork andjob redesign, training and skill development. Rees & Smith (2017.p.34), inthe analysis of studies on HRM and performance, use groupings of high levels ofinvolvement, including practices that promote flexibility at work, team andminimizing status differences.

Buller & McEvoy(2014,p.56) points out theselection, training, communication, job design, and reward systems such asthose that bring together a growing consensus among researchers. Consideringthese examples, it can be said that the aspects common to the practices are:(1) their association with motivation increase goals; (2) promote theacquisition and development of skills in employees; (3) provide opportunitiesfor the application of knowledge in the workplace; (4) impact performanceorganizational structure (Andreeva & Kianto, 2016,p.47). However, thelatter aspect, the effects of practices on organizational performance, raisesdoubts in part because of methodological difficulties of assessment as well asthe absence of consensual measures of organizational performance. In summary,using Park & Shaw (2013,p.66), opinion, greater precision is requiredorganizational performance should be defined and evaluated.

The lack of cleardefinition and validity of the performance construct may be a limiting factorin the current research on HRM and its impact on organizational performance   Minbaeva (2013,p.390), proposed fourtypes of measures for organizational performance: (1) GRH results ( turnover ,absenteeism, job satisfaction), (2) results (productivity, quality, service),(3) financial results (Profitability) and (4) capital market results (stockprice, growth, return). The measurement of the relationship between HRMpractices and organizational performance also, according to Delaney ( 2013,p.969), on the level of credibility and reliability. The weakinternal consistency of the scales used as well as low levels of overallmeasurement validity of the Human resource management practices is aninescapable issue. There is no agreement on the group of practices to beconsidered or the level of specificity of their measures (which can be theexample, from presence/absence of practice to its different expressions). Theauthors reaffirming the interest of this field of research suggest (1) agreater focus on intra-industry studies, (2) increased factory and businessstudies, and (3) development of reliable human resource management practices(Huselid et.al, 2011,p.

188). Point to last, for the need toconsider longitudinal qualitative research in order to describe moreeffectively the differences between policies advocated and their implementationand to evidence more the relationship of causality (or not) between humanresources practices and performance organizational structure(Melton,2017,p.130).When thinking about the process that mediates humanresources management and organizational performance, the discussion focuses onthe intermediate variables that we should consider in this process. Buller& McEvoy(2014,p.56), in reflecting on the organization’s diagnostic processcompare “reality with expectations, we look essentially at the results orthe products of the organization and not its processes, actions or resources.

” The focusing on organizational results limits our understanding of theprocess as the volume of business or market share are considered results butnot the leadership or the work of a team that contributed to these sameresults(Huselid et.al, 2011,p.188). Park & Shaw (2013,p.66) call attentionto the fact that designed to guide their impact on HRM results (egabsenteeism), followed by results at the organizational, financial, and capitalmarket levels. However, the increasing complexity of factors influencing(organizational or capital market, for example), attenuate the of HRM factorsfor organizational performance when it is expressed on the basis of indicatorsother than those specific to HRM. For example, the appreciation of anorganization does not highlight specific actions developed within the frameworkof HRM (Guest, 2014,p.

67). This lack of specialized evidence on organizationalresults leads to the perception that results of HRM are in fact deficient, fromthe point of view of most executives, and explain why much of HRM StrategicResearch has focused on organizational results, for example, instead of otherpossible ones such as HRM, of the capital and financial resources.