Research in e-HRM and its future directions

In the academic field, there are numerous contributions to e-HRM within several disciplines, the most attention having been given to it within the disciplines of in-formation system, human resource management, and psychology. The research approach has been mainly positivist or else interpretive and the theories applied have been micro-level oriented since leading theoretical paradigms are missing. E-HRM research lacks endogenous theories and therefore it is criticized of being done without theoretical foundations or that the theory has been borrowed from scattered sources, mostly from behaviorally oriented-theories within different dis-ciplines. The research seems to employ diverse empirical methods where surveys and case studies provide the majority of the results. (Strohmeier 2007, 19-37.)

E-HRM research focuses on diverse and specific topics rather than general ones.

Strohmeier (2007, 2012), who seems to have accomplished the most research in the field, has identified six topic areas. The central topic is the actors around the e-HRM and their preferences, perceptions, acceptance, or satisfaction. Typical ac-tors studied are applicants, HR professionals, and employees, but other stakehold-ers, such as line managers and consultants are neglected. The second most im-portant theme relates to certain consequences of e-HRM. Individual consquences seem to be the main subject of interest (e.g. single actors’ reactions to e-HRM). Moreover, operational consequences, such as efficiency and effectiveness, have been a point of interest, but the findings related to them seem to be limited and mixed. The existence of e-HRM strategies and their implementation can be seen as another object of research, but the current knowledge concerning it is scarce and ambiguous. There is also a body of research concerning the diffusion of e-HRM. The technology aspect is analyzed on a fairly general level and a sys-tematic categorization and consideration of relevant technologies are missing.

Another topic area concentrates on contextual aspects, such as the cultural, (in-ter)national, sectoral, or organizational context, but here the objective is rather to explain or moderate the configuration and consequences of e-HRM.

Bondarouk and Ruël (2009, 508-511) have been critical of duplicate studies focus-ing on cost reductions or a ‘magic’ transformation of an HR department into a stra-tegic unit due to the introduction of e-HRM. Since cost containment has been the main focus of past research, it can be assumed that there is not much more to be achieved in this area. Therefore Bondarouk and Ruël encourage researchers to focus on the integrative consequences of deploying e-HRM. They also point out that organizations tend to withhold information on whether their HR departments have become more strategic by implementing e-HRM application. Therefore, they propose that it is time to look at e-HRM as an investment in the professionalization

of the organization. Similarly, Marler and Fisher (2013) have found out that studies have not actually provided empirical evidence of the connection of e-HRM to stra-tegic HRM.

With potential future research in mind, Strohmeier (2007, 31-34) underlines the patchiness of the topics covered and aims for a more systematic approach to con-text, configuration, and consequences. Besides knowledge of general organiza-tional features, such as the size, culture, technology landscape, an understanding of the context of HRM is needed. Here, a review of HR processes, practices, and policies provides valuable information. From the actors’ point of view, it is useful to take all relevant actors into consideration. The formulation and implementation of a functional e-HRM strategy also seems to be a neglected research area. When considering the different activities, a wider approach might be needed in which the focus is not only on single actions (e.g. recruitments) but on how activities influ-ence one another. Another important step is to systematically consider the relevant technologies (e.g. front-end and back-end solutions). When studying conse-quences, the primary object of study, that is actors’ reactions, can be supple-mented by examining changing requirements and working conditions (e.g. changes in qualification profiles, work contents, work and information load). Also, a positive approach to e-HRM should consider potential downsides, as well.

Lawler and Mohrman (2003) recommend that companies expand their vision and application of e-HRM possibilities beyond process improvement and efficiency, to include a focus on strategic analyses that can turn data into strategically valuable information. The development of the era of e-HRM provides many opportunities to examine which factors make a difference in business performance, but here is a risk that this is unused potential if it is not given special attention. Also Martin and Reddington (2010, 1568) call for the linking of e-HRM, HR strategy and business

strategy to each other more carefully in the future and for the need to elaborate on the relevant context.

Among different methodological approaches, Strohmeier (2007, 30) recommends the use of longitudinal and multiple respondents approaches. In addition, he notes that self-service systems and portals provide useful material for further analyses – material which has not been utilized sufficiently in the past. There are many data traces which provide valuable information, for example occurred interactions, time spent with technology, functions used, decisions made etc. He also challenges the traditional sequence of research and practice in favor of supporting more innova-tive approaches by proacinnova-tive solutions (rather than reacinnova-tive questionnaires etc).

Future research could also profit from explicitly distinguishing different levels of in-formation technology.

To sum up the suggestions for future research, many proposals have been made in the academic field: some of them (e.g. Strohmeier 2007; Bondarouk and Rüel 2009; Marler and Fisher 2013) pointing out the main challenge of the field, i.e. its non-theoretical character and the need for a theoretical grounding, while others concentrate on smaller aspects of the field. Strohmeier (2007, 28-34) proposes that, since a comprehensive or integrative multi-level theory of e-HRM does not currently exist, an alternative could be to check the possibility of applying three groups of existing theories. Firstly, the further utilization of common micro-level theories that provide individual phenomena could be fruitful. Secondly, applying recognized macro-level theories in the field of HRM, such as the new institutional theory, transaction cost theory, or resource based theory of can be beneficial.

Thirdly, theoretical perspectives of information technology research can be promis-ing in the field of e-HRM, as well. Apart from Strohmeier’s review of the literature which provided the broadest array of critique in the existing research of that time,

most studies seem to focus on examining the effectiveness of e-HRM after that (Stone and Dulebohn 2013, 3).

Boundarouk and Rüel (2009, 506-511) have a similar view on the issue: they call for an integration of diverse expertise, interdisciplinary comprehension, and the modernization of the HR profession. They created criteria for good e-HRM re-search, for example the need for multidisciplinary studies which integrate the do-mains of HRM and IT knowledge. Such studies should concentrate on e-HRM dis-course that is to become instrumental in constructing the thinking, symbols, lan-guage, and other boundaries of this research area. Besides these, studies should contribute to building theory but they should also help practitioners with e-HRM projects. The following is their summary of the biggest challenges in the research field of e-HRM, with a proposal for a new focus area for each of them: 1) clarifying strategic ambiguity of e-HRM, 2) conceptualizing relationships between e-HRM and human capital development 3) the e-HRM web of delivery channels and per-ceptions of e-HRM and 4) measurement of value creation for diverse groups of us-ers. Sadly, still some years later, Marler and Fisher (2013) came to conclusions similar to Strohmeier’s review in 2007 concerning the state of e-HRM research.