Alternative balanced scorecards built from paradigm models in strategic HRM and employment/industrial relations and used to measure the state of employment relations and HR system performance across U.S. workplaces

Abstract

This paper constructs alternative balanced scorecards based on high‐performance work system (HPWS) and employment relations system (ERS) models. The models are depicted and compared in diagrams and used as framework skeletons for building separate HPWS and ERS scorecards, intended to provide a detailed data picture of the operational health and performance of an organization's employment/HR system and its operations, processes, and inputs/outputs. The scorecards are filled in with nationally representative data from 2,000+ U.S. workplaces using more than 50 employment/HR indicators, as reported by separate panels of managers and employees. The indicators for each workplace are aggregated into an overall HR/employment system score, ranked from low‐to‐high, and graphed as frequency distributions. These distributions provide a unique snapshot picture of the mean and dispersion of the state of employment relations and HR system performance for companies across the United State. They also reveal that “models matter” since the HPWS and ERS scorecards provide distinctly different evaluation assessments.

HRM and the COVID‐19 pandemic: How can we stop making a bad situation worse?

“…Does a necessary focus on 'business acumen' and topics such as strategic HRM and performance drive out or come at the expense of more pluralistic models of HR that emphasise the importance of how HR impacts on stakeholders? This is important because different paradigm models of HRM lead to quite different conclusions about the state of HRM and its consequences (Kaufman et al, 2021). It is therefore important for professional bodies to promote models that recognise the importance and legitimacy of stakeholder interests.…”

Measuring the gender pay gap: the complexity of HR metrics

“…Moreover, the results of this study show that the process of defining and using HR metrics is not simple; it can give rise to disagreements that concern the definition of metrics and their use. The literature has already addressed the question of appropriate and inappropriate metrics (Chhinzer and Ghatehorde, 2009; Kaufman et al , 2021; Tootell et al , 2009), but has not given specific examples of conflicts or disagreements and therefore has not studied the conflict resolution process. Tootell et al (2009) mention that “inappropriate measures simply encourage inappropriate behaviours not in the long-term interests of the business” (p. 375) and offer edifying conclusions regarding how difficult it is for the HR function to know how to measure things properly and to gain acceptance of the measures.…”

“…Indeed, these publications first underlined the ability of HR metrics to improve the contribution of the HR function to organizational performance (Welbourne, 2006; Wolfe et al , 2006) and demonstrated this ability (Doherty and Norton, 2014; Murphy and Zandvakili, 2000). Second, they contributed to the definition of a set of metrics useful for managing human resources (Fitz-enz and Davison, 2002; Kaufman et al , 2021).…”

“…The notion of political issues invites us to look at the potential conflicts that can arise around HR metrics, for example, when selecting appropriate data and metrics (Dulebohn and Johnson, 2013; Kaufman et al , 2021). The literature on HR metrics tends to obscure these conflicts, in particular by being rather prescriptive about which metrics or methods should be used (Becker et al , 2001; Cossette et al , 2014) as well as by underestimating the potential for disagreement about how to measure an HR phenomenon.…”

Old frames and new lenses: Frames of reference revisited

“…Contemporary research on the pluralist frame has focused principally on examining how it has adapted (or indeed failed to adapt) to the significant changes affecting work; namely, the breakdown of the traditional breadwinner model of male, full-time employment occurring in large manufacturing workplaces governed as they were by a prevailing structure of unionised collective bargaining. Ackers (2002) argues that pluralism has failed to move beyond its core assumption of the primacy of unions and collective bargaining that reflected the system of the 1970s much more than contemporary employment relations, whereas, at least through the efforts of authors such as Kelly (1988), Marxist analysis has engaged in some critical self-reflection and revision to reflect modern workplace realities.…”