HR technology goal realization: predictors and consequences

Abstract

PurposeDrawing on the HR technology (HRT) and information systems (IS) literatures, this study seeks to identify macro-level factors that influence the performance of HRT systems. A second objective is to assess the relative contribution that HRT goal realization makes to organizational satisfaction with HR services.Design/methodology/approachThis investigation draws on a web-based survey of 169 US and Canadian firms targeting HR executives as key informants. Structural equation modeling (SEM) tested the roles that organizational support, capabilities and aspects of the environment play in technology goal attainment and collective satisfaction with HR services. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) evaluated the properties of several key scales and supported their usage. Moderated regression analysis further assessed whether HRT age influenced certain relationships.FindingsAs predicted, system goal realization was positively related to the level of support from an HRT champion and an HR innovation climate, while being negatively related to HRT mimetic isomorphism. HR service satisfaction, in turn, was positively related to HRT goal realization, the HR innovation climate and HR environmental munificence. It also was determined that HRT champions had a stronger positive impact on goal realization for younger technology portfolios. This too was expected.Research limitations/implicationsExternal validity would be strengthened by not only increasing sample sizes for the USA and Canada, but also targeting more nations for data collection. The model's explanatory power may also be enhanced by improving the measurement of several predictors (e.g. top management support, absorptive capacity), as well incorporating constructs that focus on users (e.g. group potency, collective efficacy).Practical implicationsThese findings underscore the need to proactively screen and structure the surrounding environment to facilitate portfolio success. Greater emphasis must be placed on (1) identifying and empowering HRT champions, (2) fostering an innovation climate in the HR function and (3) conditioning HRT purchases on “mindful” adoption. Doing so should not only increase the prospects of realizing goals, but also elevate satisfaction with HR services.Originality/valueThis is the first study to formally assess the effects that organizational and environmental context have on overall HRT systems performance. Prior research has focused on linking the local conditions of individual users to their perceptions and usage of HR technologies.

How Can a Chatbot Support Human Resource Management? Exploring the Operational Interplay

“…Additionally, factors such as the placement of the chatbot, the 24/7 availability of the chatbot, updated and right answers based on statistical insights, as well as equal treatment through standardized answers, were noted to contribute to improved communication and perception of HRM information and services. This corresponds to the general notion that digital HRM support should provide simplification of processes, provision of accurate data, and enhance the perceptions of the organization in order to positively impact HRM service quality (3,13).…”

“…Drawing on the field of digital HRM support, an organizational perspective on new technologies to support digital work may enable insight into the consequences of the technology. Research indicates that operational (cost savings and efficiencies) and relational (HRM service quality) consequences of digital HRM support is more steadily obtained [3,13,27], while several authors point to a lack of evidence concerning transformational consequences [4,13]. Research addressing the organizational perspective of chatbots may benefit from addressing consequences at all three levels.…”

Capabilities and competencies for digitised human resource management: perspectives from Australian HR professionals

“…From the quantitative findings (Phase 1) of the study, there was little indication from HR professionals that their strategies had been comprehensively developed or integrated to reflect such positive and comprehensive frameworks as suggested by earlier authors. On the issue of how HR professional roles are expected to change in the digital era, a determinant of the associated new capabilities and skills required, the literature suggests a range of options, reflecting earlier projections of HRM strategies – Florkowski (2020), for example, highlights their roles as ‘HR technology (HRT) champions’ (p. 1388) who ‘sanction and support’ the implementation of smart technologies, and Habrahen et al. (2018) emphasise their strategic organisational partner, change agent, ethical monitor and employee champion roles (p. 7).…”

“…2018; Lubberink 2021; Mefi and Asoba 2021; Prakash, Krishna, and Mores 2019; SizweSihle 2021). In addition, authors such as Florkowski (2020) suggest that HR professionals need to have ‘human resource technology (HRT) champions’ within their organisations to sanction and support the implementation of smart technologies, together with three ‘enablers’ (p. 1388) – namely, comprehensive disclosure, dedicated technical resources and internal political (managerial) support. Perhaps in the absence of some (or all) of these support mechanisms, some relatively recent Australian research is less than optimistic on the capacity of managers and HR professionals to undertake these activities, with only 9% of survey respondents knowing ‘how to build a future‐ready organisation’ using these technologies (compared to 11% globally) and only half were designing their HRM systems to use them for organisational benefit (Brown 2018).…”

“…Two implicit themes in many of the studies are the importance of ethical guidelines (see Klimchak, Bartlett, and MacKenzie 2020 for the relationship between employee trust and affective commitment, and Tursunbayeva et al 2021 for specific issues with STARA implementations) and approaches to the adoption of these new technologies, especially in HRM systems; and the inclusion of multiple organisational stakeholders (employees, unions, frontline supervisors, middle and top managers, alongside HR professionals) in the design, implementation and evaluation of such systems (Abdali 2019;Bondarouk and Brewster 2016;Charlwood and Guenole 2022;Chytiri 2019;Fedorova and Koropets 2019;Habrahen et al 2018;Lubberink 2021;Mefi and Asoba 2021;Prakash, Krishna, and Mores 2019;SizweSihle 2021). In addition, authors such as Florkowski (2020) suggest that HR professionals need to have 'human resource technology (HRT) champions' within their organisations to sanction and support the implementation of smart technologies, together with three 'enablers' (p. 1388)namely, comprehensive disclosure, dedicated technical resources and internal political (managerial) support. Perhaps in the absence of some (or all) of these support mechanisms, some relatively recent Australian research is less than optimistic on the capacity of managers and HR professionals to undertake these activities, with only 9% of survey respondents knowing 'how to build a future-ready organisation' using these technologies (compared to 11% globally) and only half were designing their HRM systems to use them for organisational benefit (Brown 2018).…”