Editor‐in‐Chief's Note

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21729
• Published date: 01 May 2015
• Date: 01 May 2015
• Author: James C. Hayton

Human Resource Management, May–June 2015, Vol. 54, No. 3. Pp. 385–388

© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).

DOI:10.1002/hrm.21729

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF’S NOTE

JAMES C. HAYTON

I

am very happy to introduce this latest issue of

HRM. Periodically over the years, this journal

has featured reflective articles that address

where the field has been and where it is going

(e.g., Brockbank, 1999; Hayton, Piperopoulos,

& Welbourne, 2011; Huselid, 2011; Lawler, 2011;

Roehling et al., 2005; Ulrich, Younger, Brockbank,

& Ulrich, 2013). In this issue, we continue this

tradition by featuring two such articles, as well

as three commentaries by thought leaders in the

field.

Kicking off the issue, Bruce Kaufman pres-

ents an opportunity for further reflection in

his unique contribution to this issue entitled

“Evolution of Strategic HRM as Seen Through Two

Founding Books: A 30th Anniversary Perspective

on Development of the Field.” Professor Kaufman

offers a critical review of the ways in which

our field has evolved since the publication of

two of the seminal books. The first is Strategic

Human Resource Management by Fombrun, Tichy,

and Devanna (1984); the second is Managing

Human Assets by Beer, Spector, Lawrence, Mills,

and Walton (1984). Kaufman then contrasts

these books with more recent texts in the field,

Cascio and Boudreau’s (2012) Short Introduction to

Strategic Human Resource Management, and HRM &

Performance: Achievements & Challenges by Paauwe,

Guest, and Wright (2013). We follow Kaufman’s

article with three commentaries, representative

of the author teams of the books discussed. This

provides an opportunity for robust rebuttal and

hearty support, in equal measure. Such debates

take us beyond handwringing over status anxi-

ety (Kaufman, 2012) and provoke thoughtful

reflection on the direction of the field, not only

what we research, but the questions we ask, the

methods we use, and the answers we provide (or

do not provide) to our various stakeholders.

We might take issue with the identification of

1984 as a birth year for strategic human resource

management (SHRM), especially given the follow-

ing quote from Noel Tichy in 1983, when he was

editor of this journal:

This is the inaugural issue of a newly

focused Human Resource Management.

The journal’s focus will shift dramati-

cally to be strategic with the aim of fos-

tering communication and dialog among

scholars and executives around human

resource management concerns. (Tichy,

1983, p. 1)

However, this is a minor quibble from the (not

impartial) current steward of this journal.

Kaufman uses his review of contrasting work

30 years apart to emphasize several significant

dichotomies, many of which have been the focus

of concern elsewhere (e.g., Cascio, 2007; DeNisi,

Wilson, & Biteman, 2014; Rousseau, 2007; Rynes,

Giluk, & Brown, 2007). One such contrast is that

between earlier work attending to multiple stake-

holders and the more recent emphasis on the

interests of the shareholders over all else. Kaufman

argues strongly that contemporary HRM tends to

favor the interests of management (on behalf of

shareholders) at the expense of others, and ulti-

mately at the expense of explaining the presence

and outcomes of HRM systems. A quick review of

the current domain statement of the HR Division