OFF THE MARK: RESPONSE

TO KAUFMAN’S EVOLUTION
OF STRATEGIC HRM
PAT R I C K M . W R I G H T, D A V I D G U E S T,
A N D J A A P PA A U W E

Professor Bruce Kaufman’s look back at two seminal books published at the
beginning of the strategic HRM field and examination of two recent books to
trace the evolution of the field identifies some issues, but ones with which the
field has dealt for a number of years. His choice of our book HRM and Perfor-
mance provided the wrong target, and consequently his analysis seemed to miss
the mark. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Keywords: management history, resource based view, strategic HR

P
rofessor Bruce Kaufman’s celebration of
the anniversary of the field of strategic
HRM provides an opportunity to look at
the field’s origins, evolutionary path, cur-
rent status, and future directions. His focus
on two seminal books Strategic Human Resource
Management by Fombrun, Tichy, and Devanna
(1984; hereafter FTD) and Managing Human Assets
by Beer, Spector, Lawrence, Mills, and Walton
(1984; hereafter BSLMW), while limited, serves
as a reasonable foundation for representing the
thinking at the appearance of the field. Many of
the directions and trends he identifies seem to
us to be reasonable descriptions of how the field
has evolved over the past 30 years. However, we
differ from Professor Kaufman in two respects: his
choice of two books as the current referent, albeit
he wanted to choose two published 30 years later,
and his implication that these trends are neces-
sarily problematic. In essence, he takes aim at the
wrong target and, consequently, misses the mark.
Aiming at the Wrong Target
Professor Kaufman chose two books as represent-
ing the current state of strategic HRM: Cascio and
Boudreau’s Short Introduction to Strategic Human
Resource Management (2012; hereafter CB) and ours
(Paauwe, Guest, & Wright, 2013; hereafter PGW),
HRM and Performance: Achievements and Challenges.
We acknowledge that if one limits one’s reference
points to two books that came out exactly 30 years
later in the area of strategic HRM, then these two
fit that narrow criterion. However, we question
why one would want to place such artificial con-
straints on a field that has exploded over the past
30 years. While we would not expect an exhaus-
tive review (a simple Google search of the term
strategic HRM reveals over 28 million hits), numer-
ous reviews over the past five years might provide
a more suitable knowledge base.
In addition, if, for the sake of balance one
wants to choose two books, we can think of a
number of books that might be more represen-
tative of the field of strategic HRM than ours.
Our edited volume was aimed at a narrow aspect
(the relationship between HR practices and per-
formance) of the broader field of strategic HRM
and sought to provide rigorous reviews of the
academic research on that narrow topic. While
we would encourage all readers of this to rush

Correspondence to: Patrick M. Wright, Darla Moore School of Business, Department of Management,
University of South Carolina, 1705 College Rd., Columbia, South Carolina, 29208, Phone: 803-777-5955,
E-mail: patrick.wright@moore.sc.edu

Human Resource Management, May–June 2015, Vol. 54, No. 3. Pp. 409–415
© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).
DOI:10.1002/hrm.21723
410 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, MAY–JUNE 2015
out and buy a copy, we think that only academic
researchers would find it worth the money. For
the rest of the HRM universe, we would recom-
mend other books that might better represent the
current state of the field. For instance, Paauwe’s
(2004) HRM and Performance: Achieving Long-Term
Viability provides a much more comprehensive
model and would be much more similar to FTD or
BSLMW in its approach of blending some research
and theory with practical applications. Or Ulrich,
Younger, Brockbank, and Ulrich’s (2012) HR from
the Outside In would provide a more practice-ori-
ented perspective written by those who have been
working for years trying to help HR organizations
to become more strategic.
In summary, the choice of our book as the
“target” against which his argument aims seems
somewhat ill-advised. His critique of our book is
valid if our book was meant to present a compre-
hensive model of strategic HRM. However, since
that was not our purpose, using it as a reference
point leads the rest of his article to occasionally
misrepresent and mislead the reader as to the cur-
rent state of our field.
These trends, while Missing the Mark
worth discussing, Having chosen at least one wrong
target (we won’t speak for our col-
sometimes teeter on leagues Cascio and Boudreau), it is
not surprising that some of his argu-
becoming a series of ments miss the mark. He identifies
straw men. nine trends that illustrate how the
field has changed over the 30 years
since the publication of the two
foundational books. These trends, while worth dis-
cussing, sometimes teeter on becoming a series of
straw men, citing limited references while ignor-
ing those that might contradict the argument. We
discuss each of these below.
Shift from Management Practice to
Management Science
The evolution of any particular discipline con-
sists of broadening in scope while fracturing into
specialized subdisciplines, and the field of strate-
gic HRM is no different. Certainly at the time of
FTD and BSLMW’s publication, the nascent field
emerged from practice. Strategy had increased in
popularity among business leaders, and as they
became more enamored with strategic planning,
organizations sought to more closely align HR
with business strategy. As more and more academ-
ics entered the field and as methodological rigor
and statistical sophistication increased, a portion
of the field specialized in the science while a dif-
ferent portion continued to focus on the practice
of strategic HRM. It is therefore not clear to what
extent this shift in dominant focus is a problem
rather than an indication of the healthy growth
of the field.
This specialization/differentiation exists, and
certainly we should do all we can to better inte-
grate the diverse approaches. However, Kaufman
seems to critique the researchers for not being
the practitioners rather than recognize that both
groups exist and have much to offer one another.
Rather than suggesting that the shift has been from
practice to science, the field has seen both increase,
but sometimes struggle to communicate across
the divide. However, a number of individuals and
institutions have successfully bridged this divide.
Certainly those on the practice side have
contributed significantly to the field of strategic
HRM. Dave Ulrich’s HR Champions (1997) and
subsequent books (including the one cited earlier)
have defined the overarching paradigm guiding
much of the thinking among HRM practitioners.
In addition, a number of productive academic
researchers work for academic institutions that
have or have had centers that provide the oppor-
tunity for researchers to partner with practitio-
ners to understand and solve messy problems. For
instance, Ed Lawler and John Boudreau (Center
for Effective Organizations), Lee Dyer and Chris
Collins (Center for Advanced HR Studies), Mark
Huselid (Center for Workforce Analytics), Paul
Sparrow (Centre of Performance-Led HR), and
we the authors (Patrick Wright and the Center
for Executive Succession; Jaap Paauwe and the
People Management Center; David Guest and the
HRM Learning Board) all have respected “science”
reputations yet actively engage with companies
around strategic HRM issues.
Such institutions provide the platform for
increased communications between the practice
and academic communities. Companies have the
opportunities to share their issues, challenges, and
best practices. Academics often parlay these rela-
tionships into opportunities to conduct research
with the partner companies around these issues.
While such partnerships sometimes result in publi-
cations in academic journals (e.g., Van De Voorde,
Paauwe, & Van Veldhoven, 2010; Wright, Gardner,
Moynihan, & Allen, 2005), many simply provide
insights for practitioners into the phenomena
in which they have expressed interest (Wright,
Nyberg, Schepker, & Ulrich, 2013). Thus, the “from
practice … to science” meme does not accurately
describe the larger field of strategic HRM.
Strategy Concept
Professor Kaufman rightly notes the absence of
the strategy concept from much of the research in
strategic HRM, particularly as it pertains to the HR
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

practices–performance relationship. At an empiri-
cal level, this absence stems from the failure to
find any evidence of the need for a “fit” between
strategy and HR practices (Wright & Sherman,
1999). While a number of artifacts may explain
this failure (cf. Wright, 1998; Wright & Sherman,
1999), researchers seem to have temporarily given
up on seeking to find such fit.
However, this does not mean that strategy has
disappeared from the strategic HRM literature.
Rather, the focus has shifted from a fit between
practices and strategy to the fit between human
capital and strategy. This began with Lepak and
Snell’s (1999) recognition of multiple HR strate-
gies existing within an organization with different
strategies applied to different employee groups
depending on their strategic value and unique-
ness of their skill sets. This led writers such as
Delery and Shaw (2001) and Huselid, Becker, and
Beatty (2005) to focus on understanding key busi-
ness processes within a particular strategy, and
then identifying the key employee groups tied to
those processes. While little “science” research has
focused on empirically testing these propositions,
to say that the concept of strategy has disappeared
from the strategic HRM lexicon would be a vast
overstatement.
The Two Faces of SHRM
Professor Kaufman highlights a tension and a dis-
tinction, apparent in the early books and persist-
ing to this day between a presumption of strategic
choice and contingency on the one hand and
best practice on the other. We agree that this is a
continuing and challenging issue. He quotes from
our book our conclusion that the evidence favors
a best practice, universalist approach. The prob-
lem is that despite the logic of strategic choice and
despite the best endeavors of some researchers,
the small modest effect of “more is better” seems
to persist. This seems to worry Professor Kaufman,
but it is not quite clear why. As he has noted
elsewhere, it may be that this does not take full
account of costs. It is also possible that outcomes
are achieved at the expense of employees, an issue
that is explicitly considered in our book (see chap-
ter 2 by Peccei, Van De Voorde, & Van Veldhoven,
2013). Despite the balance of evidence to date,
we agree with the implication that this is an issue
that has been ever present in the field of SHRM
and one that will not go away.
HRM and Performance
Professor Kaufman rightly notes that the relation-
ship between HRM and performance unarguably
has emerged as the most popular topic for empiri-
cal examination. He states, “Basing a research
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
OFF THE MARK 411
program on an empirical relationship is risky, how-
ever, because if the finding is called into question,
then the entire edifice threatens to come down”
(Kaufman, 2015, p. 400). He then describes some
of the problems with this body of research includ-
ing the implicit fallacy of a “rules for riches,” the
problem of inferring causality from cross-sectional
studies, and the inapplicability of a universalistic
approach to the unique challenges faced by prac-
ticing managers.
On these concerns we partly agree. Our book
noted that this popularity necessitated a critical
examination of the research to better identify
what conclusions can be drawn with any cer-
tainty. However, it is something of a caricature to
argue that the research is based on a single prop-
osition since the exploration of a wide range of
contingent factors (see, for example, the Bowen
and Ostroff [2004] propositions about a strong cli-
mate) and a range of possible outcomes implies
a much richer agenda designed
to explore and understand rather The problem is that
than necessarily demonstrate rela-
tionships. We, as researchers, have despite the logic
been actively involved in research
questioning the causal direction of strategic choice
in the HR-performance relation- and despite the best
ship (Guest, Michie, Conway, &
Sheehan, 2003; Wright et al., 2005). endeavors of some
And we have recognized the impor-
tance of context in determining researchers, the
the appropriateness or effectiveness small modest effect
of various HR practices (Paauwe,
2004). Thus, while we agree with of “more is better”
the concerns raised by Kaufman, we
do so because we have been raising seems to persist.
them over the past 10 years.
RBV, AMO, and Human Capital
Professor Kaufman notes the popularity of the
resource-based view (RBV) of the firm within
the SHRM literature. As noted, SHRM researchers
jumped on this strategy model because its focus on
internal resources of a firm led directly to explor-
ing the firm’s human resources as a source of com-
petitive or sustainable competitive advantage.
This aided the emergence of the ability, motiva-
tion, and opportunity framework suggesting that
HR practices can create value through building a
skilled, committed, and empowered workforce.
Thus, it has become the “starting point” for much
of the research in this area.
Interestingly, the article then shifts focus and
devolves into a discussion about the creation
and partitioning of value that has been a topic of
debate within the strategy literature. In essence,
the challenge is to assign how much value is
412 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, MAY–JUNE 2015
created by employees versus other factors, and
then rightly partition that value equitably to the
various sources. Such analysis can lead to attribu-
tions of unfairness as one alleges that employees
create rents but are only able to capture a small
percentage (if any) of those rents. He notes how
the original win-win strategy suggested rent shar-
ing through mutual gains, but that firms can also
create a win-lose approach where they opt to cap-
ture the rents from their employees. Some firms
may take the win-win while others take the win-
lose approach. However, this does not negate the
potential value of the HR practices for leveraging
human capital, and may only point to the short-
term versus long-term differences in firm decision-
making styles.
Certainly, the RBV has dragged the field of eco-
nomics into SHRM, and the analysis cited earlier
illustrates how these economic concepts broaden
our view of the employee-employer relationship.
However, such broadening helps us to think with
greater complexity and thus should be viewed
as a positive development illustrat-
ing advances in conceptual analysis
To suggest that the within SHRM based on RBV, AMO,
and human capital rather than
shareholder model
reflecting any kind of problem.
has monolithically
External versus Internal Focus
encompassed SHRM Professor Kaufman seemingly
laments the increasing internal
would misrepresent
focus of the SHRM literature. He
reality. notes that “… researchers in labor
economics, industrial relations, and
personnel/HRM fields increasingly
went their separate ways, with the new field of
SHRM increasingly dominated by a new genera-
tion of researchers trained in the behavioral and
organizational sciences. With this disciplinary
background, the latter group naturally took a more
internal-micro perspective on HRM...” (Kaufman,
2015, p. 402).
While we would always be for greater cross-
disciplinary pollination, we are not sure that
we agree with the statement in its entirety. For
instance, while those in the United States, where
labor unions comprise such a small portion of the
private labor force, do tend to ignore industrial
relations, researchers in Europe and the United
Kingdom have much greater appreciation for the
institutional context in which firms operate. In
fact, Paauwe’s (2004) model clearly identifies the
external factors impacting HRM. The internal/
external distinction also tends to ignore the large
body of comparative research on SHRM, which
has as its distinctive focus an analysis of exter-
nal context. In addition, framing the issue as an
either/or trade-off unnecessarily limits how the
field has and will evolve. While some researchers,
or researchers at certain points in time, focus on
one area rather than the other, this does not mean
that the pendulum will not swing among a dif-
ferent set of researchers or the same set at a later
time. In fact, we called for such research in our
book:
This raises the broader question, also
under-developed in research, of what
factors lead to the introduction of more
HR practices and what role the social
partners can play. As already indicated,
future research might usefully explain
how HR practices come about; how, by
whom, and for what reasons they are
introduced; and what institutional and
other pressures affect the presence of
more or less HRM in organizations. In
doing so, we might build a more explic-
itly pluralist perspective. (PGW, p. 203)
Shareholders versus Stakeholders
Again, Professor Kaufman cites the drop in union
density and the increasing shareholder gover-
nance model as trends that may change the nature
of SHRM. The questions raised are valid ones, par-
ticularly when he wonders “… how the shift in
priorities toward firm performance and business
partner, coupled with the decline in power of orga-
nized labor and rise in power of organized capital
(Wall Street, banks, etc.) squares with the viability
and reality of an HPWS-type employment model”
(Kaufman, 2015, p. 403).
We agree that this question sparks some theo-
retical and empirical examination. It may, how-
ever, be a more salient question for the United
States than for most other “Western” economies,
where the concept of social partnership and an
associated broader range of outcomes has remained
more robust, even in the face of some decline in
union membership. Furthermore, to suggest that
the shareholder model has monolithically encom-
passed SHRM would misrepresent reality. Gratton’s
(2000) Living Strategy: Putting People at the Heart
of Corporate Purpose clearly articulated a broader
approach to SHRM than a pure shareholder ori-
entation. Guest (1999) has focused research on
employee stakeholders (i.e., well-being) for con-
siderable time. Paauwe’s (2004) model of HRM
specifically accounts for a variety of stakeholders.
Rogers and Wright (1998) criticized the overem-
phasis on financial measures of firm performance
and suggested a stakeholder approach to assessing
performance in the HR-performance literature.
Thus, again, the questions raised are valid, but
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

hardly new and in no way absent from the SHRM
conversation. In fact, again, we raised this issue in
our book:
The potential to pursue the dual goals
of high organizational performance and
high employee well-being reflects the
promise of HRM and is why we believe
this should continue to be a major focus
of research. (PGW, p. 197)
And:
“The term ‘human capital,’ like the term
‘human resource,’ implies something to
be utilized or exploited. The human cap-
ital perspective faces ethical challenges
on two fronts: the first is the potential
advocacy of a focus on selected key
human resources while neglecting oth-
ers; the second is the concern for human
resources as a means to organizational
ends. (PGW, p. 198)
Books versus Journal Articles
Finally, Professor Kaufman laments the trend
away from scholarly books toward journal articles
and edited volumes. We would not deny that the
current academic reward system incents the lat-
ter over the former, and thus we see fewer schol-
arly books in SHRM. However, we would question
the assumptions that many managers now or in
the past were ever likely to read books written by
academics unless they were attending an MBA
or similar program and whether scholarly books
were ever popular in this field. At the same time,
we suggest that both books and volumes/journal
articles have become critical drivers of the growth
of the field.
Regarding the first point, neither FTD nor
BSLMW were at the time nor would now be con-
sidered scholarly books. Rather, they would be
considered interesting integrating books that
bridge the academic-practice divide. They were
invaluable for providing a framing for how HR
might become more strategic, but were both so
practice oriented as to not be considered tradi-
tional scholarly books.
Second, the fact that journal articles and
edited volumes have increased does not require
that books have decreased. Books continue to
appear in the field of SHRM. FTD consisted of
a combination of academic and practitioner
authors. However, this resembles Wright and col-
leagues’ The Chief HR Officer: Defining the New Role
of Human Resource Leaders (2011), an edited book
containing chapters by chief human resources
officers (CHROs), consultants, and academics
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
OFF THE MARK 413
exploring the issues, challenges, and best practices
of top CHROs. The BSLMW might be compared to
Boudreau and Ramstad’s (2007) book, Beyond HR,
presenting an approach for how to strategically
manage talent or to Paauwe’s (2004) book, HRM
and Performance: Achieving Long-Term Viability,
providing an overarching framework for under-
standing how HRM impacts firm performance. A
relatively recent feature has been the growth of
multi-authored handbooks, which allow for more
reflective writing by scholars than is usually pos-
sible in journal articles and there are a good num-
ber of these that focus on aspects of SHRM (e.g.,
Storey et al., 2009).
Conclusion
We appreciate Professor Kaufman’s efforts to use
the 30-year anniversary of two seminal SHRM
books as an opportunity to look back, look around,
and look forward. He raises a num-
ber of issues with which the field of
We would question
SHRM must wrestle. However, much
of his article implies that the field the assumptions
has not struggled with these issues
because of his choice of a narrow that many managers
set of referents, alongside narrowly
now or in the past
selected illustrations. By presenting
our purely academic tome as a rel- were ever likely to
evant representative of the field, the
article creates straw men criticism of read books written
the discipline. As we have showed,
by academics unless
when these limitations are dropped
to consider the totality of the field, they were attending
one recognizes that the issues he
raises have been and continue to an MBA or similar
be considered as part of the field’s
program.
evolution. What he also presents is
a field of study that has burgeoned
over the past 30 years and has advanced in terms
of its theoretical frameworks, its diversity, depth,
evidence base, and capacity for critical analysis.
In contrast to some of Professor Kaufman’s previ-
ous comments (Kaufman, 2012), this is a story of
success.
One of the features of developments over
the past 30 years that Professor Kaufman hardly
touches on is the internationalization of research
on SHRM. What he presents, understandably,
is a predominantly US perspective on the field.
Relevant research is now being conducted in most
sizeable countries and published in leading inter-
national journals. As we have noted, the large
body of comparative research on SHRM requires
a greater focus on external influences. It is also
notable that research in Europe in particular has
paid much greater attention to institutional fac-
tors and to the importance of incorporating
414 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, MAY–JUNE 2015

employee concerns in the study of SHRM, indicat-
ing that the pluralist perspective, which Professor
Kaufman perceives as disappearing from SHRM
research, continues to flourish in some countries.
All this provides further indications of the rich-
ness, diversity, and development of research in
this field.
An overarching issue that seems to weave
its way throughout the arguments of Professor
Kaufman’s article is the nature of the reward
system within academe and across an academic
career. The quest for tenure requires a narrow
focus on publishing in the top journals. This can
only be accomplished through rigorous empirical
and theoretical analyses, often devoid of any real-
world context. One best accomplishes this through
narrowly defining research questions whose value
stems from its journal publishing potential rather
than its organizational relevance. Thus, all of us
in our early careers might have been described as
displaying such a narrow focus.
However, once one grasps the brass ring of ten-
ure, academics gain increased freedom to broaden
their research questions, methodologies, and pub-
lishing outlets. We, along with a number of our
more senior colleagues, have taken such a path.
This does not require shunning our academic
research efforts, but rather provides an opportu-
nity to write about them more discursively and to
supplement them with more grounding in organi-
zational practice. We believe that, while progress
can still be made, the field of SHRM continues to
grow, evolve, and adapt. We have enjoyed being
part of it, and look forward to the future contribu-
tions we, Professor Kaufman, and the readers will
make over the next 30 years.

PATRICK M. WRIGHT is Thomas C. Vandiver Bicentennial Chair in the Darla Moore School of
Business at the University of South Carolina. Professor Wright teaches, conducts research,
and consults in the area of strategic human resource management, particularly focusing
on how firms use people as a source of competitive advantage. He has published over 60
research articles in journals, over 20 chapters in books and edited volumes, and has co-
authored two textbooks and two books on HR practice. He has guest coedited six special
issues of journals and coedited three research volumes and one book on HR practice.

DAVID GUEST is professor of organizational psychology and human resource management

in the Department of Management at King’s College, London. His main research interests con-
cern the relationship between human resource management, organizational performance,
and employee well-being; psychological contracts and flexible employment contracts; and
the impact of the changing nature of careers. He sits on several editorial boards and has pub-
lished in a wide range of journals including the Journal of Organizational Behavior, Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Human Rela-
tions, British Journal of Industrial Relations, and Academy of Management Journal.

JAAP PAAUWE is professor of human resource studies at Tilburg University, the Netherlands.
Before joining Tilburg, he worked as a full professor of organization at Erasmus University
Rotterdam, School of Economics. At Erasmus University he is still involved in supervising PhD
students in the area of HRM and performance in health care. He has written and coauthored
books on human resource management and published more than 150 papers/chapters in
international refereed journals and books. Jaap has been a member of the Executive Com-
mittee of the HR Division of the Academy of Management since 2012. His main research
interests are in the area of HRM, performance and well-being, HR function and delivery,
organizational change, and industrial relations.

References Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM–firm

Beer, M., Spector, B., Lawrence, P. R., Mills, D. Q., & Walton,
R. E. (1984). Managing human assets. New York, NY: Free
Press.
Boudreau, J. W., & Ramstad, P. M. (2007). Beyond HR: The
new science of human capital. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
performance linkages: The role of the “strength” of the
HRM system. Academy of Management Review, 29(2),
203–221.
Cascio, W. F., & Boudreau, J. W. (2012). Short introduction
to strategic human resource management. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm


Delery, J. E., & Shaw, J. D. (2001). The strategic management
of people in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and
extension. Research in Personnel and Human Resources
Management, 29, 165–197.
Fombrun, C. J., Tichy, N. M., & Devanna, M. A. (Eds.). (1984).
Strategic human resource management. New York, NY:
Wiley.
Gratton, L. (2000). Living strategy: Putting people at the
heart of corporate purpose. Harlow, England: Pearson
Education Limited.
Guest, D. E. (1999). Human resource management—the
workers’ verdict. Human Resource Management Journal,
9(3), 5–25. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-8583.1999.tb00200.x
Guest, D. E., Michie, J., Conway, N., & Sheehan, M. (2003).
Human resource management and corporate perfor-
mance in the UK. British Journal of Industrial Relations,
41(2), 291–314. doi: 10.1111/1467-8543.00273
Huselid, M. A., Becker, B. E., & Beatty, R. W. (2005). The
workforce scorecard: Managing human capital to execute
strategy. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kaufman, B. E. (2012). Strategic human resource manage-
ment research in the United States: A failing grade after
30 years? Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(2),
12–36. doi: 10.5465/amp.2012.0037
Kaufman, B. E. (2015). Evolution of strategic HRM as seen
through two founding books: A 30th anniversary per-
spective on development of the field. Human Resource
Management, 54(3), 389–407.
Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. (1999). The human resource archi-
tecture: Toward a theory of human capital allocation and
development. Academy of Management Review, 24(1),
31–48. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1999.1580439
Paauwe, J. (2004). HRM and performance: Achieving long-
term viability. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Paauwe, J., Guest, D. E., & Wright, P. M. (Eds.). (2013). HRM
and performance: Achievements and challenges. West
Sussex, England: Wiley.
Peccei, P., Van De Voorde, K., & Van Veldhoven, M. (2013).
HRM, well-being and performance: A theoretical and
empirical review. In J. Paauwe, D. E. Guest, & P. M.
Wright (Eds.), HRM and performance: Achievements and
challenges (pp. 14–45). West Sussex, England: Wiley.
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
OFF THE MARK 415
Rogers, E. W., & Wright, P. M. (1998). Measuring
organizational performance in strategic human resource
management: Problems, prospects and performance
information markets. Human Resource Management
Review, 8(3), 311–331. doi: 10.1016/S1053-4822
(98)90007-9
Storey, J., Wright, P. M., & Ulrich, D. (Eds.). (2009). The
Routledge companion to strategic human resource
management. Oxon, England: Routledge.
Ulrich, D. (1997). HR champions. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business Review Press.
Ulrich, D., Younger, J., Brockbank, W., & Ulrich, M. (2012). HR
from the outside in: Six competencies for the future of
human resources. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Van De Voorde, K., Paauwe, J., & Van Veldhoven, M. (2010).
Predicting business unit performance using employee
surveys: Monitoring HRM-related changes. Human
Resource Management Journal, 20(1), 44–63. doi:
10.1111/j.1748-8583.2009.00114.x
Wright, P. M. (1998). Strategy-HR fit: Does it really matter?
Human Resource Planning, 21(4), 56–57.
Wright, P. M., Boudreau, J. W., Pace, D. A., Sartain, E.,
McKinnon, P., & Antoine, R. L. (Eds.). (2011). The chief HR
officer: Defining the new role of human resource leaders.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Wright, P. M., Gardner, T. M., Moynihan, L. M., & Allen,
M. R. (2005). The relationship between HR prac-
tices and firm performance: Examining causal
order. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 409–446. doi:
10.1111/j.17446570.2005.00487.x
Wright, P. M., Nyberg, A. J., Schepker, D. J., & Ulrich, M. D.
(2013). The critical role of CHROs in CEO succession:
Results of the 2013 HR@Moore Survey of CHROs.
Technical report. Retrieved from http://mooreschool
.sc.edu/UserFiles/moore/Documents/Management/CES
/CHROsurvey2013.pdf
Wright, P. M., & Sherman, S. (1999). Failing to find fit in
strategic human resource management: Theoretical and
empirical problems. In P. Wright, L. Dyer, J. Boudreau, &
G. Milkovich (Eds.), Research in personnel and human
resource management (Vol. 4, pp. 53–74). Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
Copyright of Human Resource Management is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.