The Research‐Practice Gap in Human Resource Management: A Cross‐Cultural Study

• Author: Tamara L. Giluk,Sven Kepes,Aino Tenhiälä,Seongsu Kim,In‐Sue Oh,Cristina Simón
• Date: 01 March 2016
• Published date: 01 March 2016
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21656

Human Resource Management, March–April 2016, Vol. 55, No. 2. Pp. 179–200

© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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

DOI:10.1002/hrm.21656

Correspondence to: Aino Tenhiälä, Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Aalto University,

Otaniementie 17, 02150,Espoo, Finland, Phone: +358 9 47001, E-mail: aino.tenhiala@aalto.fi

Huselid, 1998; Delery & Shaw, 2001; Huselid,

1995). This skilled, motivated, and adaptable

workforce is then able to drive organizational per-

formance (Becker, Huselid, Pickus, & Spratt, 1997;

Jiang, Lepak, Hu, & Baer, 2012). As such, it would

seem reasonable that HR practitioners make use

of scientific HR evidence in order to improve

their decisions on which practices to implement

within their organizations. However, it is unclear

whether HR practitioners are aware of the results

of the research that could boost the performance

of their organizations (knowledge gap) or they are

just not implementing the most effective prac-

tices as prescribed by research results (knowing-

doing gap) (e.g., Briner, 2007; Pfeffer & Sutton,

2000; Rousseau & Barends, 2011; Rynes, 2012).

A manager is responsible for the application

and performance of knowledge.

—Peter Drucker (1993, p. 44)

Scientific evidence indicates that

certain human resource (HR) prac-

tices are positively related to organiza-

tional performance (Combs, Liu, Hall,

& Ketchen, 2006; Subramony, 2009).

High-performance work practices—such as selec-

tivity in hiring, incentive compensation, and

job-specific training and development—enhance

employees’ knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs),

increase employee autonomy and responsibility,

and motivate employees to perform well through

performance feedback and rewards (Becker &

THE RESEARCH-PRACTICE GAP IN

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT:

A CROSS-CULTURAL STUDY

AINO TENHIÄLÄ, TAMARA L. GILUK, SVEN KEPES,

CRISTINA SIMÓN, IN-SUE OH, AND SEONGSU KIM

In this study, we examine the cross-cultural differences in human resource (HR)

managers’ beliefs in effective HR practices by surveying HR practitioners in

Finland (N= 86), South Korea (N= 147), and Spain (N=196). Similar to previ-

ous studies from the United States, the Netherlands, and Australia, there are

large discrepancies between HR practitioner beliefs and research fi ndings, par-

ticularly in the area of staffi ng. In addition, we fi nd that interpersonal-oriented

aspects of HR practices tend to be more culturally bound than technical-oriented

aspects of HR practices. We interpret the differences using Hofstede’s cultural

dimensions (Power Distance, Individualism versus Collectivism, Masculinity

versus Femininity, Long-Term Orientation versus Short-Term Orientation, and

Uncertainty Avoidance). We discuss the overall nature of the science-practice

gap in HR management, and the implications for evidence-based management.

©2014Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Keywords: evidence-based management, HR practices, cross-cultural compari-

son, international HR

180 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, MARCH–APRIL 2016

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

This approach

entails not simply

the acceptance

of these high-

performance work

practices as “best

practices” but rather

an understanding

of the sound

scientific research

in HR management,

industrial-

organizational (I/O)

psychology, and

related academic

fields upon which

such work practices

are based.

answered only 57percent of items (20/35) in line

with research evidence, indicating discrepancies

between research findings and practitioner beliefs.

Discrepancies were particularly large in the areas

of selection, motivation through goal setting, and

performance management.

Two replications of this effort among Dutch

(Sanders, van Riemsdijk, & Groen, 2008) and

Australian HR practitioners (Carless, Rasiah, &

Irmer, 2009) yielded very similar results. In both

studies, respondents answered around 60percent

of the items correctly and fared the worst on selec-

tion-related items. On a micro level, the character-

istics of the respondents have been discussed to be

relevant factors (e.g., job level, tenure, education,

information-seeking strategies, attitudes toward

academics and research; Carless etal., 2009; Rynes

etal., 2002; Sanders et al., 2008). Other research

points to the fact that organizational context and

corporate cultures may account for some of the

differences in human resource practices and strat-

egies (Gerhart & Fang, 2005). Another aspect to

be taken into account is the cross-cultural gener-

alizability of results regarding which practices are

more successful than others. For example, Guest

and Zijlstra (2012) surveyed 75 senior and emi-

nent academics across Europe about their percep-

tions of research evidence. They reported that

72percent of the respondents believed that some

US research findings would not transfer to Europe

because of societal/cultural differences. Even

though research has examined some cross-cultural

aspects of the implementation of HR practices

(e.g., Budhwar & Sparrow, 2002a; Gerhart & Fang,

2005), the role of national culture in shaping prac-

titioners’ beliefs about HR practices has received

insufficient attention.

In the present study, accordingly, we replicate

and expand the efforts of Rynes et al. (2002) in

three countries: Finland, Spain, and South Korea.

By doing so, we contribute to the literature by

exploring the potential role of national culture

on HR professionals’ beliefs, an examination

that is not possible within a single-country study

(Carless et al., 2009; Sanders et al., 2008; Rynes

et al., 2002). Specifically, we examine the possi-

bility that beliefs about some HR practices, those

that are more interpersonal-oriented, are culture

specific, while others, those that are more tech-

nical-oriented, are not (see, e.g., Reiche, Lee, &

Quintanilla, 2012). We aim to explain the differ-

ences in HR professionals’ beliefs using Hofstede’s

cultural dimensions (Hofstede, 1993; Hofstede,

Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010). Finally, we discuss the

overall nature of the science-practice gap in HR

management, and the implications of our results

for EBMgt.

Evidence-based management (EBMgt) means

basing decisions on the best available scientific

evidence, evidence from the local context (i.e.,

organizational facts and metrics), practitioner

judgment, and the perspectives of stakehold-

ers (Briner, Denyer, & Rousseau, 2009; Rousseau,

2012). Evidence-based HR management, how-

ever, requires more than knowing simply that

“HR works” for organizations. As Briner (2007,

p. 5) observed, evidence-based practitioners dig

deeper to understand “whether, and the extent

to which, certain practices solve particular sorts

of problems and in which contexts”

as well as “whether our practices

might be doing more harm than

good and whether the benefits they

may accrue outweigh the costs.”

This approach entails not simply

the acceptance of these high-perfor-

mance work practices as “best prac-

tices” but rather an understanding

of the sound scientific research in

HR management, industrial-orga-

nizational (I/O) psychology, and

related academic fields upon which

such work practices are based. Only

with this understanding can one

begin to determine whether a partic-

ular HR practice will achieve desired

outcomes in one’s own cultural and

organizational settings and in accor-

dance with the perspectives of rel-

evant stakeholders.

Rousseau and Barends (2011,

p.221) recently posed this provoca-

tive question to HR practi tioners:

“Do you know the scientific evi-

dence for ANY of the HR practices

your company uses?” They asserted

that many practitioners would

likely need to answer “no.” Indeed,

Rynes, Colbert, and Brown (2002)

surveyed nearly 1,000 manage-

rial and executive-level HR prac-

titioners (members of the Society

for Human Resource Management [SHRM]) in

the United States regarding well-established HR

research findings in multiple HR areas (general

management and employment practices, training

and employee development, staffing, and com-

pensation and benefits). Items were constructed

based on well-established (often meta-analytically

derived) research results. Respondents indicated

whether they agreed, disagreed, or were uncer-

tain about each item, which served as a basis

for comparison between practitioner beliefs and

research findings. On average, HR practitioners