The Future of HR Is RH...

HUMRES-00502; No of Pages 16
Human Resource Management Review xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Human Resource Management Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/humres
The future of HR is RH: Respect for humanity at work

Jeanette N. Cleveland a,⁎, Zinta S. Byrne a, T.M. Cavanagh b
a
Department of Psychology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, United States
b
Dominican University of California Barowsky School of Business San Rafael, CA 94901, United States
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Available online xxxx Using Ecological Systems Theory, we propose a four-part approach to HRM: short vs. long-term
relationships, life-course changes, multiple contexts and success criteria, and permeable and
Keywords: reciprocal influence. Infusing HRM with a psychological concern for human dignity results in
Ecological Systems Theory respect for humanity at work, as well as advocacy for employees and their communities.
Respect for humanity at work Published by Elsevier Inc.
Future of HRM
Interdisciplinary approach
Employee welfare
Human Resource Management (HRM), both a profession and a set of activities within an organization, has the overarching goal of
making the best possible use of human resources to help make organizations effective, successful, and sustainable (Davidson, McPhail,
& Barry, 2011; Fombrun, Tichy, & Devanna, 1984). The roles of Human Resource (HR) managers range from administrative
(e.g., payroll administration, record keeping) to managing the training and career development of employees. Similarly, the stake-
holders who are served by HRM are just as wide-ranging, including the members and owners of organizations and the society in
which organizations are embedded.
The modern profession and discipline of HRM have its roots in the changing relationships between employers and workers starting
in the early 20th century (Dulebohn, Ferris, & Stodd, 1995; Ulrich, Younger, Brockbank, & Ulrich, 2012). Originally focusing on
methods of increasing productivity (Taylor, 1911), the field expanded to include industrial and labor relations and a reconceptualiza-
tion of workers as human assets rather than as essentially interchangeable cogs in an industrial machine. Industrial and Organizational
(I/O) psychology shares many concepts, goals and tools with HRM, but there are important differences in the emphases of these
respective fields. Both fields are concerned with the success and viability of organizations and with the welfare and behavior of its
employees, but the two fields do have different emphases.
Modern HRM thinks of employees as a critically important asset to the organization. Taylor's Scientific Management represented
an early attempt to develop these assets that treated employees more like tools than like individuals, but as HRM developed as a field,
it recognized that human assets could not be effectively developed and sustained without recognizing and taking into account the
needs, preferences and perspectives of employees. Nevertheless, HRM does not exist to serve employees per se, but rather to help
to develop and sustain an asset that is critically important to the organization. Benefit to the organization represents the ultimate cri-
terion for evaluating the success or failure of HRM.
In contrast, psychology takes the person as a starting point, and treats work organizations as one of the important contexts in
which people act. I/O psychologists are very interested in ways people can be selected, trained, developed, and assigned to help
organizations achieve their goals. However, the central focus of psychology in organizations is to enhance employee performance,
health, and well-being, treating the organization as an important context within which people interact (e.g., employees, customers,
and communities) and to benefit and improve peoples' lives (www.siop.com/missionstatement; www.apa.com/mission).
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 970 491 4135.

E-mail address: jnc10@me.com (J.N. Cleveland).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2015.01.005
1053-4822/Published by Elsevier Inc.
Please cite this article as: Cleveland, J.N., et al., The future of HR is RH: Respect for humanity at work, Human Resource Management
Review (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2015.01.005
2 J.N. Cleveland et al. / Human Resource Management Review xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
The differences in emphasis in psychology and HRM are far from absolute. Psychologists have played a role in the view of em-
ployees as interchangeable resources, developing highly effective methods of selecting the best employees from a pool of applicants
(Schmidt & Hunter's, 1998, review of nearly a century of research on the validity of selection tests) and of training employees to
meet the challenges of their jobs. HRM professionals are concerned with employees not only as assets to a firm, but also as individuals.
Nevertheless, we believe that the somewhat different orientation of psychologists and HRM researchers and professionals does lead to
some important differences in the problems they attempt to solve and in the ways they go about doing this.
In this paper, we suggest that psychologists have a good deal more to offer HRM than a set of tools for selecting, evaluating, or
developing employees. Psychologists are not only concerned with criteria such as effectiveness and economic sufficiency, but they
are also vitally concerned with the human welfare of the members of organizations (American Psychological Association, 2010)
and with making the experience of work one that contributes to the sustainability of workers, work groups, and organizations. Eco-
nomic sufficiency, effectiveness, and profitability represent necessary but insufficient standards for organizational success. By taking
the broader perspective of what psychologists can offer HR managers, we aim to identify emerging or new perspectives on HRM and
offer concrete suggestions for advancing the practice of managing human resources. Consistent with this aim, we use variations on
Bronfenbrenner's (1979, 1994, 2005) “Ecological Systems Theory” as a guiding framework to discuss what HRM is doing well now,
and as a lens to assess and strengthen the future and impact of HRM on the lives of its organizational members and organizational
sustainability.
The first general principle noted in the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (American Psychological Association,
2010, p. 3) states that “Psychologists strive to benefit those with whom they work and take care to do no harm. In their professional
actions, psychologists seek to safeguard the welfare and rights of those with whom they interact professionally and other affected
persons…” Translating this principle into action is always a challenge, but in the context of HRM in organizations, we believe that as
psychologists we have a responsibility to:
• Act in ways that benefit the organization

• Act in ways that benefit the members of that organization
• Do so in a way that recognizes the rights and essential human dignity of all members of and stakeholders in the organization.
Economically oriented approaches to improving organizational effectiveness and productivity have largely focused on the needs
and preferences of managers and of the owners of organizations (e.g., stockholders). A perspective that emphasizes respecting hu-
manity at work does not ignore these needs or preferences, nor ignore the economic well-being of the organization. An organization
that is humane but ineffective will eventually have no employees about whom to worry. A humane perspective suggests that a
broader set of stakeholders needs to be considered in evaluating and improving the health and effectiveness of organizations, and
that this set of stakeholders includes workers and their families, and the communities of which they are part.
Our paper begins with a description of the current and emerging constituents of HRM. This section is followed by an introduction
of the general Ecological Systems Model (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) and key features relevant to HRM that may provide a single path
upon which to steer HRM in the future. Next, we link these major features of HRM with the concerns that are highlighted when
respect for humanity (RH) is added to the mix of perspectives for advancing the health and sustainability of organizations.
Fig. 1. Current and future HR/RH stakeholders.
J.N. Cleveland et al. / Human Resource Management Review xxx (2015) xxx–xxx 3
1. Current and emerging stakeholders: broadening HRM/RH constituent base
There are many stakeholders who have a legitimate interest in the outcomes of human resource decisions (e.g., Colakoglu, Lepak, &
Hong, 2006; see also Stakeholder Theory: Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Freeman, 1984). Their perspectives, goals, and interests vary,
and these differences can have an influence on evaluations of HRM systems. As Fig. 1 suggests, the employee is the core constituent
of the HRM/RH process. The employee is embedded within multiple layers of context, the most proximal of which is the organization
and the family. The influence between the individual employee and both these proximal environments is direct and reciprocal. In
addition, both proximal environments can affect or influence each other, as well as combine jointly to influence the employee. Finally,
organizations are located within the broader environment they influence, including society and culture, and that, in turn, reciprocally
influences them.
1.1. Employees
A well-rounded program of HRM is one that serves the employees of the organization — one of the company's most valuable assets.
One of the objectives of HRM is to help maximize links between the goals and objectives of employees, and the goals and objectives of the
organizations who employ them (Schuler, 1992). Both organizations and employees have legitimate needs (e.g., productive employees,
reasonable work, and a respectable wage), and organizations are most likely to be sustainable when both sets of needs are met. HRM/RH
in the future would be enhanced by shifting its mind-set to understand the employee as a resource that is ever changing (developing).
Unlike the physical properties in an organization (e.g., buildings, property), human resources are not static. They contribute increasing
talent and expertise to the organization as their knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) develop and grow throughout their career. Further-
more, this contribution may shift as employees work into advancing age and changing family needs. As employees develop, their orga-
nizational contributions may be reflected in higher work satisfaction and organizational commitment demonstrated concretely in
mentoring activities and greater organizational citizenship behaviors (Hall, Feldman, & Kim, 2013). Therefore, HRM/RH representatives
likely will be called upon to serve as knowledge experts on practices that employees may need most at a given time and also to take a
developmental approach to understanding how such needs develop and change over time as the employee initially grows his or her ex-
pertise, levels off, and then shifts in contribution level and type.
1.2. Organization
HRM serves the organization by managing the needs of the company relative to the needs of employees, to ensure a healthy
balance between the two. By focusing on staffing concerns, payroll/compensation plans, and benefits, HRM ensures that the manage-
ment has the right staff at the right time to perform the required work (Meisinger, 2007). By focusing on staffing, payroll, and benefits,
HRM also ensures that employees are paid fairly, have enough coworker support to complete their tasks, and enough benefits to take
care of themselves and their families so they can engage at work (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007).
1.3. Families
There are clear linkages among the demands and needs of the organization, those of the individual employee, and those of the
employee's family (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1994). Work and family are often perceived as competing domains, but they do not
have to be (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). By understanding the relationships between work and family, and the ways they can reinforce
or compete with one another (Williams, 1999), HRM can help organizations develop programs and policies allowing employees to
maximize the likelihood of a positive relationship between their work and family needs. In the long run, such maximization benefits
both employees and the organization.
For example, family-friendly policies in organization are often framed as methods of reducing work–family conflict.
Bronfenbrenner's ecological model emphasizes the notion that work–family interactions are complex and bidirectional, suggesting
that HRM might benefit from more thoroughly considering both conflict and facilitation (i.e., how can work be structured to facilitate
families rather than simply reducing conflict) and to more thoroughly consider both directions in which work and family influence
one another.
1.4. Society
Occupational health psychology focuses primarily on establishing a healthy and functional workplace for employees to thrive (Tetrick
& Quick, 2011). HRM/RH can benefit from the research findings of occupational health psychology to indirectly serve society, focusing
attention on promoting the health and mental well-being of employees. When employee well-being diminishes or employees are laid
off, they must draw from community resources for health services, financial aid, or other support services. By advocating policies and
practices that protect and foster the well-being of employees, organizations support the community and society within which they op-
erate (i.e., corporate social responsibility; Thumwimon & Takahashi, 2010).
Additionally, HRM practices that enable employees to volunteer in the community not only reflect positively on the organization, but
also enhance employee development and provide a strong foundation for a well functioning community. Developing a healthy well-
being involves fulfilling a sense of meaning (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Becherer, Morgan, & Richard, 1982; Hackman & Oldham,
1980; Steger, 2009), and people find meaning at work (Kahn, 1990; Steger & Dik, 2010) and through contributions to their community.
Moreover, empirical evidence supports the link between social contributions to the community and improved financial performance
for corporations (Waddock & Graves, 1997). Hence, HRM's role in fostering employees' search for meaning through contributions to
society, in the long run, benefits the organization (Boesso & Michelon, 2010). By advocating for policies that benefit and/or protect the
community (i.e., environmental and ecological sustainability), HRM supports the organization's image and economic sustainability,
the well-being of employees (i.e., healthy buildings), society (Shrivastava, 1995), and the larger environment (e.g., ecological
sustainability).
2. Ecological Systems Model, HRM, and RH in the future
Historically, HRM practitioners have been concerned with managing human resources to achieve organizational goals (Kaufman,
2015). The current HRM theories such as the resource-based view (Barney, 1991) support the idea that employees are a unique, inim-
itable, and immobile resource providing firms with a competitive advantage. HRM practitioners have embraced strategically aligning
HRM practices with organizational goals. Though these advances are important for demonstrating the necessity of an effective HRM
department for organizational success, this perspective must go farther in the future to avoid the risk of satisfying organizational out-
comes at the expense of employees. Organizations that fail to support their employees run the risk of losing their sustainability (Yu,
Lee, & Tsai, 2010).
Successful organizations are ultimately built upon the foundation of successful individuals, and HRM can play a unique and pivotal
role in promoting both. In the remainder of the paper, we describe how Bronfenbrenner's (1994) Ecological Systems Model can be
used to identify and solve the problems faced by organizations as they attempt to balance short-term economic concerns with
their longer-term need to provide a sustainable environment for their business and their employees.
The ecological model is a theoretical perspective that can be adopted to organize and balance organizational and employee
outcomes, thus avoiding the over emphasis of one at the expense of the other. The model was originally conceived to help understand
human development within multiple layers of context (e.g., families, neighborhoods, and communities). The ecological model
proposes that human development takes place over time through processes of complex, reciprocal interaction between individuals
and their environments. Bronfenbrenner (1994) describes multiple ecological systems within which the individual is embedded
and each system has its own set of success criteria.
Bronfenbrenner's theory can be described as a process–person–context–time model (Tudge, Morkova, Hatfield, & Karnik, 2009).
This theory emphasizes the importance of proximal processes — i.e., interactions between the individual and persons, objects and
symbols in one's immediate environment. These influence the developing person and his or her environment.
According to this theory, characteristics of people (e.g., age, gender, appearance) influence the interactions between an individual
and the context within which he or she operates, so that what a person brings into the context becomes part of the ‘person by context’
interaction. Contexts, in turn, are defined at several levels of analyses, and the various contexts within which one operates
have reciprocal influences on each other. Finally, these interactions occur over time, changing both the person and the
context(s) (Bronfenbrenner, 1988, 1989). The key insight of this model is that individuals both act in contexts and act upon
the context, and that the constant process of person–context interaction means that both persons and contexts need to be
thought of in dynamic rather than static terms.
For example, the Bronfenbrenner model suggests that at the point an individual enters an organization, that individual, his or her
family, his or her community, the workgroup, and the organization start to change. The nature and extent of these changes depend in
part on the attributes the individual has when entering the organization, and changes at each level of context can have a ripple effect,
changing the other contexts in which that person operated and changing the person as well. From this perspective, the person, the
family, the community and the organization are not entirely separate spheres, and the interdependence of these spheres is likely to
grow over time as individuals and contexts interact.
Proposition 1. Over time individuals change their environments based on their unique characteristics and perspectives, and as the
environment changes, so does the person.
In many ways, the ecological model's main tenets of contextual influence, reciprocal effects, and longitudinal change are similar to
open systems theories developed and applied in organizational psychology and HRM (e.g., Katz & Kahn, 1978; Klein & Kozlowski,
2000; Wright & McMahan, 1992). Namely, open systems theories suggest that organizations affect individual employees, and individ-
ual employees in turn affect organizations. The benefit of the ecological model, however, is the emphasis on individual development
and the interdependent relationship between individuals and the levels of environments of which they are a part — whether that con-
text or environment is a family, an organization, a community or a country. Because both individual development and interdependent
relationships are based on accomplishing mutually beneficial goals, organizations and families are actually very similar. By putting the
person at the center of the model, we are reminded that a goal of HRM is the development of human resources, and that HRM's main
goals centers upon the health, well-being, and optimal development of individual employees. Organizational investment in individual
development gives individuals the resources they need to reciprocally invest in developing the organization. This investment, in turn,
creates a positive feedback cycle of increasing success for both organization and employee.
Below are four key features based in the ecological model that can be used to guide HRM/RH in the future as it considers the
development of individuals for the benefit of both employees and organizations: (1) short vs long-term relationships; (2) life course
changes; (3) multiple contexts and criteria for success; and (4) reciprocal influences among contexts and the individual.
2.1. Short vs. long term relationships
Perhaps one of the most important aspects of the Ecological Model is its emphasis on reciprocal effects over time: individuals'
behavior is the result of longitudinal interactions with their environments, and the environment is a result of the collective behavior
of individuals over time. From an HRM perspective, this means that we can improve organizational performance by investing in long-
term, developmental relationships with employees, as opposed to restricting the relationships to contractual agreements where
employees' employment is counted in weeks or months and relationships are constrained by the explicit and economic language
of the contract. A long-term investment in employees is consistent with the resource-based view of organizational competitiveness
(Barney, 1991), which emphasizes that it is not only employees' well developed skills that make them valuable resources — it is
also that they are inimitable.
The emphasis on reciprocal interaction in the ecological model suggests that more attention should be paid to the way individuals
relate to the organizations who employ them. For improvements in organizational performance, however, employees must be
committed to staying with an organization over the long-term and be unwilling to offer their resources to competitors. There is
both theoretical and empirical evidence that the more organizations invest in, develop, and are committed to their employees, the
more committed the employees are to their organizations (e.g., Benson, 2006; Birdi, Allan, & Warr, 1997; Hom et al., 2009; Kuvaas
& Dysvik, 2010; Lepak & Snell, 1999). Unfortunately, in some industries, the use of short-term contact works was prevalent during
the 1990–2000s. Further, the practice of outsourcing jobs or organizational units to external consultants or oversees predictably ad-
versely affected both employee commitment and loyalty to organizations and perhaps contributes to the short term and instrumental
perceptions among younger generations regarding their employer. Thus, to “get the most” out of employees, organizations must be
willing to “invest the most” in their development, thereby building a committed and mutually beneficial relationship over time.
Proposition 2. Though organizational policies that invest in the health and well-being of workers may be more expensive in the short
term, they will be positively related to organizations' long term financial success and sustainability.
2.1.1. Economic vs. psychological priorities

One application of the short vs. long-term focus is the balance between economic and psychological or health priorities of
employees and organizations. The emphasis of the ecological model on the reciprocal relationship between individuals and
their environment points to the importance of psychological outcomes for employees. Most organizations utilize economic out-
comes as an important gauge of success. However, the ecological model suggests that economic profitability is a necessary but
insufficient criterion for success. Specifically, organizations reflect an economic exchange at one level, yet importantly they also rep-
resent social, psychological, and emotional exchanges (e.g., employee–coworker/organization, employee–family, employee–society).
Employees develop psychological relationships with their organizations (Rousseau, 1989), whereby breaches of psychological
contracts or expectations between employees and their employers result in negative attitudinal and behavioral consequences
(e.g., withdrawal; Robinson & Morrison, 2000).
Healthy, successful organizations are those where HRM/RH effectively advocates, designs, and builds a foundation that balances
the productivity of the organization with psychologically healthy employees. Healthy employees (and families) are a prerequisite
for healthy organizations. Thus, the health and well-being of employees is as relevant a measure of organizational performance as
is financial success (Tetrick & Quick, 2011); hence, the ecological approach advocates the use of both.
Proposition 3. Recently, some organizations (e.g., Walmart) have reduced employee work hours to less than 29 h to avoid
health benefit requirements mandated by the Affordable Care Act. Decisions like these, in which organizations prioritize profits
over employee health and well-being, will be negatively related to the long term sustainability of these organizations, and will
negatively impact both the societal and economic well-being of the communities of which these organizations are a part. Furthermore,
because of the burden placed on government provided social services, the cost of organizations that do not prioritize the health and
well-being of their employees will outweigh the benefits, such as tax revenue and employment opportunities, for some communities.
Proposition 4. Organizations where HRM places a priority on the care of employees (by using alternative approaches to workforce
reduction or cutbacks during tough economic times), and attending to the environmental sustainability of organizations (including
green buildings that support the health of employees) will retain more highly committed, engaged, and productive employees
because their overall health and well-being are secured — not just within themselves, but within their community and family realm.
2.2. Life-course changes: development and decline
One foundation of HR is the identification and utilization of individual differences among employees, and to capitalize on such
differences is to maximize the fit between employees and their organizations. The emphasis is on understanding and measuring be-
tween person/employee differences. However, in the future, as the Ecological Systems Model suggests, it will be similarly important to
identify and understand within person/employee variations or changes. The current HR practices are often created to address the
needs of a diverse set of people (between or individual differences); yet there is much to gain from focusing on changes that occur
within individuals over time. For example, it is increasingly important to understand the role of challenging work assignments, not
only to develop the KSAs of up-and-coming employees to expert levels, but also when and how to use such assignments to maintain
or retard the decay of specific KSAs that may change as a result of increasing age or stressful work situations (Schultz & Adams, 2007;
Tetrick & Quick, 2011).
Natural and inevitable declines in capability as employees age need not result in a decrease in contribution (Salthouse, 2012;
Zhang & Richardson, 2010). For example, in a simple test of typing-related tasks, Salthouse (1984) found that older adults
outperformed younger adults, even though older adults demonstrate slower reaction times. Salthouse attributed the performance
of older adults to their larger eye-hand spans and ability to preview forthcoming keystrokes beyond that of the younger adults. By
understanding efficiencies and major contributions at various points in the life-span, organizations can make use of contributions
matched to employees' peak performance at each stage. For example, declines in fluid cognition begin around 30 years of age, where-
as increases in crystallized cognition range from age 20 to 65 (Salthouse, 2012). Fluid cognition is attributed to creativity and inno-
vative thinking, whereas crystallized cognition is associated with accumulated knowledge, particularly helpful in careers where
having a tremendous depth and breadth of knowledge is critical for success. Thus, organizations could consider putting younger
adults on teams where innovation is the goal, and then progressively as they age, move them to managerial and expert teams
where a reliance on accumulated knowledge is essential for success. Adults' physical abilities do decline with age such that physically
demanding and potentially dangerous work (e.g., high-power construction equipment, police or fire services) can result in a greater
risk of injury and strain resulting in decreased contribution (e.g., Gilbert & Constantine, 2005). Hence, HR practitioners must be aware
of both cognitive and physical changes as employees' age, and develop appropriate staffing and new KSA acquisition plans in
response.
Additionally, initial research in employee engagement shows that employees who have and can use a variety of skills to complete
work assignments are engaged (e.g., Christian, Garza, & Slaughter, 2011), implying that the development of KSAs over time may
contribute to sustainable engagement for employees, regardless of natural declines in capability.
Proposition 5. HR systems that focus on developing and increasing the malleability of employees' KSAs over their lifespan are poised
for higher levels of continuous engagement and organizational performance than HR systems that do not.
2.3. Multiple contexts and criteria for success
One way that an ecological approach to HRM differs from its primarily organization-centric perspective is that it suggests a wider
range of criteria for success. In the 1950s and 1960s, there was general agreement that success at the individual level could be measured
by pay and promotion, and that organizational success could be measured by some combination of the balance sheet and the stock price
of the organization. There was, of course, some backlash, with recognition that these narrow criteria could lead to negative conse-
quences for organizations and individuals (Wilson's, 1955 Man in the Grey Flannel Suit was the first in a series of successful novels
attacking the post WWII world of business), but the criteria for success in the American workplace still have not substantially changed
over time (Cleveland & Murphy, 1992; Murphy & Cleveland, 1995).
Bronfenbrenner's (1979, 1994, 2005) ecological approach suggests a broader criterion set that should include the following
indicators:
• Economic — both short and long-term measures of the value of the organization in the marketplace
• Growth and sustainability — how the organization is making progress in its markets, and the degree to which it is approaching a
sustainable state in the marketplace
• Individual success — job success, which would include pay and promotion, but would also include the extent to which the individual
does quality work that is a source of satisfaction, and of individual satisfaction with and sense of reward from work. This would also
include measures of the health and psychological welfare of employees
• Group success — the ability of employees to function well in groups and the extent to which the success of individuals is enhanced
by the performance and success of their co-workers
• Family success — the extent to which work success contributes to or detracts from the family sphere
• Contributions to the community — the extent to which the organization contributes to or harms the community in which it is
embedded.
One of the major challenges implicit in the ecological approach is balancing these criteria because as the breadth of the set of
criteria increases, the possibility that different criteria may come into conflict may also increase. For example, organizations
often benefit by transferring managers and executives from one location to another (Campion, Cheraskin, & Stevens, 1994),
but these transfers can have negative implications for the health of individuals and families (Labovitz, 1977). One of the
major contributions of HRM professionals will be to articulate the likely effects of organizational policies on the ecologically en-
hanced criterion set, and to make organizational decision makers aware of potential conflicts among criteria. HRM professionals
may not be able to or necessarily decide on their own how to resolve such conflicts, but by making organizational decision
makers aware of these potential conflicts, they increase the likelihood that the conflicts will be addressed in a thoughtful,
proactive, and ethically responsible way.
Proposition 6. Organizational policies that prioritize financial success over employee well-being will be related to personal level out-
comes such as the mental health and well-being of employees and their families; societal level outcomes such as crime rates, divorce
rates, and scholastic success of individuals within the communities where these organizations are located; and ultimately to the long
term sustainability and success of the organizations themselves.
2.4. Permeable and reciprocal influence among contexts and individual
The ecological model emphasizes the reciprocal influence of individuals and their environments, and suggests that providing
individuals with the ability to influence their environments in meaningful ways can lead to better outcomes for both. In an organiza-
tional context, for example, the model implies that employees should be provided the opportunity, voice, and power to shape their
organization. Empowerment and voice can be accomplished by narrowing the power gap between top management, lower level
management, and employees (Rudolph & Peluchette, 1993).
In recent years, however, at least two examples suggest that some organizations based in the United States have followed strategies
that widen rather than narrow the gap between labor and management. One highly controversial example is the increasing difference
in the pay levels of executives and non-managerial workers (Smith & Kuntz, 2013). By paying top executives hundreds of times more
per hour than entry level workers, organizations create a form of class system or distinct separation that is increasingly difficult to
bridge or to justify (Thomas, 2003). As a result, employees perceive systematic inequities resulting in reduced job involvement, job
performance, job satisfaction, and increases in stress (e.g., Aquino, 1995; Singh, 1994). The message the organization ultimately
sends to employees and society with such differential pay mechanisms is that the employees who ultimately do the work are not
valued. Such a message is completely contradictory to the goal of HRM — to maximize the value of one of the company's greatest
assets; the frontline employees.
Another example of the widening gap between upper-management and line-staff employees is organizations pursuing a “lean and
mean” strategy of doing more with less. That is, a common first step in efforts to improve organizations is to lay off workers (Cascio,
2008). The short-term benefits to the organization's balance sheet can be impressive, and stockholders are likely to take notice of the
increased shareholder value (Brookman, Saeyoung, & Rennie, 2007; Palmon & Sun, 1997). However, these layoffs can also have
devastating short-term impact on many other stakeholders (e.g., Palmon & Sun, 1997), and they may also threaten the long-term
sustainability of organizations (e.g., Goins & Gruca, 2008). More with less is not necessarily a sustainable strategy (Cascio, 2008),
nor a strategy of sustainability.
Proposition 7. How employees are treated during organizational change affects not only their attitudes but those of the “survivors”, as
well as permeates into the community. The overall message sent by the organization as to the value of employees has an unintended
ripple effect that the Ecological Systems Theory approach suggests is grossly larger than previously assumed.
To be committed to improving their organization, employees must feel responsible or a sense of ownership for the direction the
organization is taking, as well as understand how organizational development benefits them (e.g., Bernhard & O'Driscoll, 2011;
Bilbrey & Jones, 2010). By giving more power to employees lower in the organizational hierarchy, both in terms of voice or participa-
tion, organizations can encourage them to take responsibility for successes and failures, and invest in the development of a successful
organization (Pfeffer, 2005). However, the relationship between power distance and empowerment of employees can be complicated,
as there are multiple forms of empowerment that are more effective that others depending on the situation (Fock, Hui, Au, & Bond,
2013) and moderators such as country culture (e.g., Zhang & Begley, 2011).
The ecological model is consistent with many current organizational systems theories in that it emphasizes relationships between
the individual and the context, as well as their development over time. However, the ecological model also emphasizes the impor-
tance of individual development, and proposes that through reciprocal interactions, healthy individuals lead to healthy organizations.
With regard to employees, this means to be successful, organizations must invest in long-term employee development, recognize
psychological as well as financial outcomes, and increase the ability of employees to influence the organization by reducing the
power differential between the highest and lowest level workers.
3. Moving to the future of HRM: respect for humanity at work
HRM is a field in transition. According to Buchen (2005), HRM historically has been responsible and successful in hiring competent
people, retaining valued people, and optimizing and aligning their performance with organizational success. As HRM has moved from
its traditional focus on managing the present resources of an organization towards a strategic conception of HRM, there has been some
concern about the tendency to lose sight of the “human” component of HRM (Wright & McMahan, 2011). Scholars argue for the
recovery of a human emphasis (see Wright & McMahan, 2011), something we believe would be accomplished by taking a more
ecological approach to thinking about the role of HRM in organizations.
As it is described in academic or scholarly journals and books (see Society of Human Resource Management series on practices), Stra-
tegic HRM may be more of a theoretical construct than a description of an HRM practice. Interestingly, it appears that the actual practice of
HRM more closely aligns with the notion of RH, which is more consistent with the Ecological Systems Model than with Strategic HRM. In
support, reviews of “Best Employer” surveys (Love & Singh, 2011) reveal eight key criteria that emerge for best HR practices including:
(1) performance management systems where performance expectations and rewards are clear, people take responsibility and required
competencies come from the strategic plan; (2) training and development programs that support career development and talent man-
agement, as well as succession planning; (3) systematic and validated strategy that identifies best practices in identifying employee
needs and then implementing them; (4) communication, wherein HR experts or caretakers focus on communication strategies that
are open, two-way, information rich, and provide employees with voice opportunities; (5) inspired leadership, where HR experts
focus on leadership development to create transformational and fair leaders; (6) benefits that are flexible, innovative, promote safe en-
vironments, and provide direct feedback; (7) physical workspace that is comfortable and healthy; and (8) corporate citizenship that is
fostered and rewarded by supporting the community, demonstrating concern for the environment, promoting charities by giving em-
ployees days to volunteer, and genuinely promoting the value of the organization (see Love & Singh, 2011).
These eight areas are highly consistent with the ecological systems approach. The first three practices focus upon the development
of the individual employee or the core of the system. Next, both communication strategies and leadership are examples of the process-
es that either enhance or inhibit the permeability between the employees and the contexts within which they are embedded. The last
three areas can be viewed as important characteristics of the multiple contexts that influence the development of the individual
employee.
In the sections that follow, we link these three groupings to examples of how HR/RH practices in the future can be guided by the
ecological systems approach.
3.1. The core of the system: the individual
The ecological model suggests that HRM should be concerned with the well-being and the development of individuals as well as
finding the best person for the job.
3.1.1. Engagement and well-being

An engaged workforce feels competent, finds meaning in work, and finds growth psychologically through work. RH is crucial to
creating such a workforce. Organizations benefit from striving to create an engaged workforce (Byrne, Palmer, Smith, & Weidert,
2011). By creating opportunities, organizations foster engaged employees who are mentally and physically healthy (Attridge, 2009;
Schaufeli, Taris, & van Rhenen, 2008). Engaged employees tend to produce more than disengaged employees, resulting in higher cus-
tomer satisfaction and company profit (Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002). Similarly, employees reporting positive well-being tend to
demonstrate higher job satisfaction and job performance as compared to those reporting low levels of well-being (Wright,
Cropanzano, & Bonett, 2007). Organizations that provide support to employees juggling work-family issues or health issues
(e.g., chronic pain) also have employees who tend to perform at higher levels than those who feel unsupported (Byrne &
Hochwarter, 2006; Witt & Carlson, 2006), which speaks to the importance of HRM/RH's role in creating a supportive work climate.
Raising perceptions of organizational support involves developing leaders and policies that convey consideration for employees'
needs, well-being, challenges, and concerns (Eisenberger, Cummings, Armeli, & Lynch, 1997).
Another way to encourage employees to contribute to the organization is to generate a meaningful work that fosters employee
development and health. Organizational psychologists have long seen the potential for work to satisfy belongingness, esteem, and
self-actualization needs (Alderfer, 1969; Maslow, 1943), as well as designing jobs that offer the opportunity to use diverse skills,
and provide meaning and autonomy to employees (Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959). Designing
jobs to be meaningful and developmental increases job satisfaction for the employee, which in turn has positive effects on organiza-
tional outcomes, such as increased productivity and decreased turnover (Champoux, 1991; Fried & Ferris, 1987).
Employee assistance programs (EAPs) and health promotion programs (HPPs) are other forms of organizational policies that can
have a direct benefit on the health and well-being of employees. EAPs are defined as formal intervention systems designed to assist
organizational members with a wide range of problems that may be affecting job-related behaviors. HPPs are interventions designed
to reduce health risks and increase healthy behavior (Roman & Blum, 1988). Organizations often implement EAPs to deal with specific
problems, such as alcoholism (e.g., Milne, Blum, & Roman, 1994). However, EAPs are by definition designed to address a broad range of
employee problems and should be available to employees for diverse purposes. EAPs and HPPs are not only useful for addressing
problems once they occur; they can be used as preventive measures to increase employee health and wellness through exercise,
healthy eating practices, and stress reduction programs (Conrad, 1988; Roman & Blum, 1988). Beyond the humanistic contribution
these programs make to the betterment of employees' lives, EAPs create happier, healthier employees who are more likely to be
productive and less likely to miss work (Hargrave, Hiatt, Alexander, & Shaffer, 2008).
3.1.2. Talent acquisition, development, and retention

According to Pfeffer in a 1998 interview for FastCompany (Webber, 1998), what separates one organization from another are the
skills, knowledge, commitment, and abilities of the employees. Toxic workplaces, work environments wherein employees are treated
poorly (e.g., disrespect, relentless demands, ruthlessness, subtle yet chronic discrimination, excessive gossip and rumors), are chasing
away the best talent (Fisher, 2010; Macklem, 2005). HR can do something about this cause of talent loss. An example of how to combat
a toxic workplace includes developing a psychosocial safety climate (Law, Dollard, Tuckey, & Dormann, 2011). A psychosocial safety
climate refers to the shared perceptions of organizational policies that focus on employee voice, safety, and health. Research has
demonstrated that a positive psychosocial safety climate is negatively related to bullying and harassment, both of which contribute
to a hostile or toxic work environment and can lead to health impairment at work (Bond, Tuckey, & Dollard, 2010).
Hence, one of HR's goals is to seek and ensure the health and well-being of employees so that they may not only contribute to the
organization, but also that they may live longer and healthier non-work lives. Research demonstrates that healthy people with finan-
cial stability and those who feel positively about how they are treated by their organizations (i.e., fairness, supportive leaders) tend to
volunteer (Paradis & Usui, 1987; Penner, 2002). Volunteering has substantial positive effects on society and also, in most cases, on the
volunteer him or herself as well (see Wilson & Musick, 2000). Employee development and well-being is a critical criterion of success in
its own right, and it is short-sighted to view it as a means only to the goal of organizational success.
Another way in which HRM practitioners can increase the well-being of employees is through the retention of employees during
times of economic challenge. Research demonstrates the powerful negative psychological effects of termination and unemployment
on the unemployed (Paul & Moser, 2009), and the negative impact on work attitudes by so-called “survivors” (i.e., employees who
remain after downsizing; Datta, Guthrie, Basuil, & Pandey, 2010). By retaining employees during difficult economic times, organiza-
tions can maintain a psychologically healthy, motivated workforce. There are several motivational theories (e.g., Adams, 1963;
Rousseau, 1989; Vroom, 1964) that suggest that organizational commitment to employees during difficult times should result in em-
ployee commitment to the organization when labor market conditions change in the employees' favor. The retention of employees
during difficult economic times requires that organizations develop appropriate and strategic staffing plans, with an emphasis on
maximizing the development of employees' KSAs to ensure flexibility in work assignments and roles. HRM plays a critical role in
facilitating the development of long-term staffing plans with contingencies for changes in the organizational financial status.
It is difficult for employees to be successful and productive at work if they are distracted and anxious about personal and financial
problems (e.g., Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Kahn, 1990). Thus, a critical advocacy role for HRM practitioners is to ensure that
employees receive a livable pay, benefits, and a secure retirement, which ultimately contributes to their ability to develop and stay
at work. These types of incentives are associated with higher employee organizational commitment and job satisfaction (Hulin,
1991), and can be powerful in the recruitment process, ensuring that firms are competitive in obtaining the best talent (Chapman,
Uggerslev, Carroll, Piasentin, & Jones, 2005).
3.2. Reciprocal permeability between individual and contexts
One proposition of the Ecological Systems Model states that
Proposition 8. Individuals operate simultaneously within and upon multiple levels of context, also sometimes referred to as proximal
or distal contexts.
Selected examples as reflected in interpersonal relationships are presented below.
3.2.1. HR communication and leader development

Research on the relationship between employees and management falls under an overarching construct called the employ-
ee–organization relationship (EOR; Shore et al., 2004), which encompasses issues such as support, psychological contracts and
extra-role behavior (Coyle-Shapiro & Shore, 2007). Leadership research suggests that when employees and leaders develop an
exchange-oriented relationship such that in exchange for resources (e.g., privileged information) the employee demonstrates
high performance and commitment (LMX; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995), the results include high employee performance, high levels
of employee commitment, high levels of employee satisfaction, and low role conflict and turnover intentions (Gerstner & Day,
1997). Transformational leaders, those who have high ethical standards, engender loyalty, and inspire their followers with a
compelling vision (Bass, 1985), are perceived as fair and engender higher employee performance more than other forms of lead-
ership (Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996), though transactional leadership (leaders focused on task accomplishment)
should not be underestimated or ignored (Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003).
3.2.2. Interrelationships and employee–organization dynamics

In addition to developing leaders who foster positive employee relations, HRM can support positive management relations by
looking out for worker conflict and intervening where appropriate to avoid negative outcomes, such as deliberate acts of sabotage
(DiBattista, 1991). DiBattista found that a significant number of sabotage events (e.g., employee theft, infecting computers with
virus', contaminating water supply, and strikes) resulted from labor disputes. DiBattista's work seems a precursor to recent studies
on counterproductive work behavior (deliberate acts to harm the organization or its members; Hershcovis et al., 2007; Martinko,
Gundlach, & Douglas, 2002; Robinson & Bennett, 1995). This work has shown that supervisor aggression has the strongest effect on
employees (more so than coworker aggression; Hershcovis & Barling, 2010), and that organizational climate, including the nature
of psychological contracts (Jensen, Opland, & Ryan, 2010), may foster or stifle peoples' propensity to act on their tendencies to engage
in counterproductive work behavior (O'Boyle, Forsyth, & O'Boyle, 2011). Indeed, employees may even use counterproductive behav-
iors in protest of inappropriate treatment from the organization (see Kelloway, Francis, Prosser, & Cameron, 2010). By fostering work-
place fairness, HRM representatives can reduce the possibility that employees may engage in revenge or counterproductive work
behaviors in their efforts to protest or get even (Jones, 2009). Similarly, research on layoffs has revealed that employees who feel fairly
treated and supported during the layoff process tend to accept the layoff situation with greater ease than those who feel unjustly
treated or who lack support (Hemingway & Conte, 2003; Naumann, Bennett, Bies, & Martin, 1998; Patient & Skarlicki, 2010;
Wanberg, Bunce, & Gavin, 1999).
3.3. Contextual influences on individual development
The Ecological Systems Model provides guidance on how contexts can affect individual employee behavior and effectiveness. Two
general organizational examples are highlighted below.
3.3.1. Environmentally sound and safe buildings and workplace

A great deal of research has been conducted in the last few decades focusing on environmental sustainable building design. “Green
buildings” have a direct impact on employee health and well-being and are buildings that are designed to be less resource intensive
and pollution producing than traditionally designed buildings (Hoffman & Henn, 2008). Some strategies used to accomplish green
buildings have direct, positive impacts on employees' workspace, for instance through the reconfiguration of workspaces to take
advantage of natural sunlight, incorporate superior ventilation, and reduce the toxicity of office materials (Heerwagen, 2000).
These changes can benefit employees' health and productivity by reducing exposure to airborne microbial agents, the enhancement
of interior lighting quality that leads to less glare and visual fatigue, and increased interaction with the natural environment
(e.g., indoor plants increase air quality).
“Greening” a firm can also lead to strategic and financial benefits for organizations (Ambec & Lanoie, 2008). Evidence shows that
the characteristics of the building and the indoor environment have a significant impact on the physical health of its occupants, as well
as on worker productivity (Fisk, 2000). For example, Fisk (2000) estimated annual savings and productivity gains in 1996 of $6 to $14
billion from reduced respiratory disease, $15 to $40 billion from reduced symptoms of sick building syndrome, and $20 to $200 billion
from improvements (unrelated to physical health) to performance associated with the indoor building environment. Though the
actual building material themselves are critical, so is the comfort of the occupants. Optimal thermal and lighting comfort, as well as
intensity and favorability of smells, have been related to higher levels of employee productivity (see Fisk, 2000, for a complete review).
Continued focus on green buildings has no doubt increased those savings substantially. We propose that one goal of HRM today is to
focus the organization on creating ecofriendly, environmentally sustainable, and healthy workplaces.
Another focus of HRM emphasizes employees' safety. Substantial research has focused on safety in the workplace (Hoffmann &
Stetzer, 1996; Law et al., 2011; Reason, 1997; Silva, Lima, & Baptista, 2004; Zohar, 2010). The focus of much of this research has
been on identifying at-risk individuals and developing preventative management models that focus on eliminating risk factors
(Tetrick, Quick, & Quick, 2005). Many of the key principles for adopting safe work environments include commitment from the
organization to promote a safe work environment, policies that enforce safe behaviors, incentives, and appropriate goal-setting, to
name a few (e.g., Alavosius, Adams, Ahern, & Follick, 2000; Geller, 1990; Law et al., 2011). Because of the nature of the factors that
contribute to a positive work climate (e.g., leadership, organizational policies, reward systems; Credo, Armenakis, Feild, & Young,
2010), we propose that fostering safe work environments falls to HR to ensure management commitment, behavioral change and
management programs, and policies that reward or enforce appropriate behaviors. HRM practitioners can advocate for the well-
being of employees through institutionalized practices. Ergonomics and human factor engineering can be used to design safe work-
places that prevent injuries ranging from carpal tunnel syndrome to industrial accidents (Hendrick & Kleiner, 2002). These types of
interventions can also make the workplace more comfortable and motivating for employees (Hendrick & Kleiner, 2002).
3.3.2. Diversity and legal issues

Legal departments within organizations ensure that the corporation follows corporate law, that the board and senior leadership
team makes decisions that do not violate critical corporate statutes, and that other corporations do not violate their territory
(i.e., violate patent law, inappropriate property or rental agreements, corporate partnerships that are in the best interest of the
company; e.g., United States Cellular Inv. Co. of L.A., Inc. v. GTE Mobilnet, Inc., 2001/2002). However, recent insight into employees'
perceptions of the employment at-will doctrine suggests that HRM will continue to have a hand in legal issues within the organiza-
tion. Specifically, Roehling (2002) and others (Callahan, 1990; Forbes & Jones, 1986) found that there exists a societal norm that
employees should only be fired for good cause or good reasons, not without cause, which is the basis of the employment at-will
doctrine. Whether the doctrine is appropriate or not is a separate issue; it is clear that employees hold firmly to the “good cause”
norm, and that out of a right for fair treatment (Folger, 1993) they need to be given adequate explanations for the loss of employment.
HRM has control over the establishment of expectations.
Ignoring employee expectations, perceptions, and norms can lead to expensive lawsuits or retaliation (e.g., Barclay, Skarlicki, &
Pugh, 2005; Jones, 2010; Tripp & Bies, 2010). Perceptions of access to training/mentoring and the implications of that training, for
example, are a classic example of where employees and legal issues interact. A number of lawsuits have sprung from employees'
perceptions of discrimination in the form of not having access to mentoring or training that would have potentially led to career
advancement or hiring (e.g., Jensvold v. Shalala, 1996; United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO v. Weber, et al., 1979).
Thus, HRM in the future will undoubtedly remain involved in legal issues surrounding benefits, compensation, employee relations,
ethics, global issues, safety, staffing, and technology. Specifically, the family and medical level benefits of the United States are asso-
ciated with various regulatory hurdles that must be met to ensure eligibility and full insurance coverage. Compensation associated
with summer hires, overtime workers, plant closures, hourly versus wage workers, and international employees requires an under-
standing of legal and regulatory issues. Lawyers, for the most part, are not trained in issues of compensation, but HRM personnel
are and should be trained in employment law. Ethical issues pop up continuously with communication plans, such as announcements
of mergers or other SEC sensitive deals. Corporate fraud has, unfortunately, been an issue of increasing impact and HR is well suited to
deal with organizational climate issues, fairness, leadership development, and employee training to ensure ethical behavior.
3.4. Sustainability of HRM/RH
We described above how increasing the health and wellness of organizational members is good for organizational outcomes.
However, the health and wellness of the organization are also good for member outcomes. Thus, an additional role that HRM profes-
sionals can play to benefit both organizations and their members is to ensure the sustainability of organizational practices. At a basic
level, this involves fulfilling some of the more “traditional” roles of HRM, such as bookkeeping and providing legal oversight to ensure
that organizational practices are in accord with local and federal guidelines. From a strategic standpoint, this involves using HRM's
unique skills to be a partner in positive workforce planning; to be innovators in leadership, change, and development; and to hold
leaders accountable to high ethical standards. By doing so, HRM professionals can ensure that organizations are legally and fiscally
sound, and have all the human resources necessary to be competitive and sustainable.
Recent HRM publications have emphasized the importance of HRM being strategic, i.e., aligning HRM policies with the strategic
needs and goals of organizations (e.g., Beer & Spector, 1984; Schuler & Jackson, 2007). Though the importance of this shift is clear,
HRM practitioners must be viewed as instrumental in ensuring that the “human” in “human resources” is placed at the core of
their mission and incorporate it within the notion of being strategic (Ulrich et al., 2012).
4. Respect for humanity: what would HR in the future look like?
An effective HRM system in the future would continue to expand on the joint product of creative and innovative interdisciplinary
teams that may exist within HRM systems of large companies today. These teams include specialists in traditional areas of HR
reflecting compensation and benefits, job analysis, selection and placement, as well as skill and performance management and feed-
back. In addition, future systems would include occupational health experts (different from occupational therapists) who use job and
work information to restructure jobs so that work strengthens and enhances the mental and physical well-being of employees at all
levels. Furthermore, the HRM system would include human factors engineers, as well as a demographer or workforce specialist and a
labor economist.
The future of HRM must include the traditional HRM disciplines of industrial and organizational psychology and labor economics,
but also span and creatively work together with the disciplines and among the multiple levels of the organization and the larger
environment (Boudreau & Ziskin, 2011). In an interview for Forbes Magazine (Schawbel, 2012), Ulrich states that HRM practitioners
are most influential and credible with business leaders when they are dedicated “activists who build relationships of trust” and when
they are “innovators, integrators, capability builders and technology proponents” (Ulrich as cited in Schawbel, 2012; Ulrich et al.,
2012). The collective role of the HRM system, therefore, is (1) to assess and determine what mix of compensation and benefits
provides a basic yet healthy and sustainable income for living; (2) to continually assess the productivity, performance, attitudes,
and well-being of organizational members; and (3) work beyond the organization to influence society and the global environment
for long-term sustainability (DuBois & Dubois, 2012). Importantly and consistent with the Ecological Systems Model, ‘Strategic’
HRM is evolving in the direction of using a strategic lens not only to examine the internal state of the organization, but also to examine
and anticipate the changes in the external world. The current efforts in corporate social responsibility suggest that HRM systems today
are not where they need to be in considering external pressures on organizations to respect the environment or the sustainability of
the workforce and organization (e.g., DuBois & Dubois, 2012; Ones & Dilchert, 2012).
Strategic HRM can potentially be a lens to examine both business conditions and multiple stakeholder expectations, so that HRM/
RH can connect their work to these external conditions. Ulrich suggests that this will require a shift in focus from internal state of the
organization to the external environment and to the forces that may shape the internal state of the organization and its members
(Schawbel, 2012; Ulrich et al., 2012). Consider the following scenario: traditional HRM departments have included individuals with
training in business and management, and occasionally psychology or information systems management. Suppose a more wide-
ranging team was assembled that also included ethicists, public health specialists, sociologists, and occupational therapists and
psychologists. This interdisciplinary team would enable HRM departments to evaluate the impacts of HRM practices on workers,
organizations, and society, by considering a much wider range of perspectives than have been part of the traditional practice of HRM.
Proposition 9. Organizations of the future, which have an HRM system as described in this paper, will have fewer employee retention
issues, and report employing a larger percentage of employees from a broader range of diverse backgrounds that occurs in today's
market.
5. Implications: what we know, what we do not know?
We know as psychologists, and, specifically as work psychologists, that individuals differ. As Lawler (2011) states “Few things are
as obvious as the fact that individuals differ” (p. 302). We know that situations and contexts differ as well, yet we have few well-
articulated taxonomies of contexts, organizations, and global societies. There are numerous perspectives and activities that reflect
expert level knowledge with HRM systems and of which HRM currently does very well. In contrast, we believe that the current
HRM systems are not only narrow in perspective-taking (e.g., the organization's economic productivity), but have also been siloed
in their thinking and creative use of their expertise and the tools developed to manage and advocate for employees (Cascio, 2008).
This is largely a critique of the field of organizational science, rather that the practice or front lines of HRM, where management
journals place a disproportional emphasis on theory development when more practice oriented or ‘atheoretical’ work could be one
basis for allowing theory and understanding to emerge and develop (e.g. inductive knowledge generation as well as deductive;
Cascio, 2008; Hambrick, 2007).
In the first column of Table 1, we identify examples of areas where we believe that the current HRM systems operate reasonably
well and contribute to the performance and sustainability of organizations. In the second column, we describe how HRM systems
must shift in their orientation, creatively developing ways to use existing and new knowledge and tools via interdisciplinary collab-
orations to address the needs of all workers and the ever-changing context of work.
As Table 1 indicates, there are numerous activities and services where HRM currently excels. First, drawing from extant psycho-
logical and measurement research, psychologists in HR do a solid job of identifying the knowledge, skills, and abilities (e.g., KSAs)
needed to perform successfully in a wide range of occupations. Further, there have been tremendous improvements in the reliable and
valid measurement or assessment of these KSAs. That is, HRM managers can do a reasonable job of identifying and utilizing predictors
or tests of future job performance (as in item 1). Second, individual job performance is composed of task performance and contextual
performance (e.g., organizational citizenship behavior), and there are a variety of reasonable measures of the former, and increasing
options for the latter. Third, HRM jointly uses predictors and criteria to make decisions about applicants regarding their likelihood of
success in the future. For each of these, the effectiveness of the HR expertise or practice is assessed largely in terms of efficiency or how
much payoff the organization accrues by using valid tests to predict future task defined performance; for the most part, an economic
indicator.
Training employees and leaders to complete the requirements of their work or to lead others in the completion of organizational
goals is another area that reflects the current HRM expertise. Further, I/O psychologists and specialists know that jobs and organizations
can be redesigned, enlarged to enhance efficiency/productivity or reduce errors and costs. In the area of diversity and work–life interface,
HRM has explored ways in which both training and work design might mitigate or exacerbate conflict. Further, HRM uses individual and
group variation to understand the diverse workforce and assist employees to avoid conflict and maximize their performance. Currently,
HRM may also include a conflict negotiation and management function. However, conflict resolution activities typically occur among
management and labor groups rather than between individual employees or among groups of employees. Finally, although Organiza-
tional Development (OD) or organizational change activities are frequent in organizations today, they have rarely been housed within
HRM, nor do OD specialists assist in implementing HRM practices, which also involve organizational change. Thus, the knowledge is
there but the effective use of the knowledge and expertise can benefit from much room for improvement. As Pfeffer (2005) states,
one of the most important tasks for HRM in the future is to shift how organizational leaders and employees think about situations.
That is, it is important to ‘change the mental models’ as to both the intended and unintended outcomes from doing HR as it is done today.
What we do not know is how to modify jobs to fit individual knowledge, skills, abilities, and interests of employees in an increas-
ingly diverse and international workplace. How can we determine what job can be retooled or modified to address the characteristics
of individual workers? How can jobs and organizations be structured so as to enhance the health and well-being, as well as the
performance and productivity of its incumbents? We believe that addressing these questions will help to shape the future of HRM.
For example, researchers can examine job crafting (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001), an approach to job redesign, within the HRM
processes. Job crafting involves employees' physically or cognitively changing how job tasks or relational boundaries are established
and executed at work, enabling them to see various approaches to using their knowledge, skills, and abilities, while maximizing their
interests (Berg, Wrzesniewski, & Dutton, 2010). As of yet, research into the role of job crafting in HRM does not exist. Thus, rather than
trying to retool jobs for employees, it may be best to involve employees in the retooling process.
Proposition 10. Job crafting supports the modification of jobs to fit employees and employees to fit jobs and organizations.
6. Conclusion
Although Bronfenbrenner's (1994) term “Ecological Systems Model” is not referred to often in the HRM literature, many
management researchers have stated that in the future HRM will need to be proactive and responsive to the organizational
and economic environments within which it is embedded (Boudreau & Ziskin, 2011). We too believe that although some of
the future of HRM will be defined within the domain of the HRM discipline, many of the most significant issues will reflect
and require that HRM experts go beyond the traditional boundaries of their function. HRM's future role and effectiveness
Table 1
Comparison between todays HR systems and the future HR systems.
Current HR systems: What we know Future HR systems: What we need
1. Identify KSAs needed to perform required job tasks 1. Identify KSAs that are malleable, interchangeable, change tolerant
2. Measure job task performance and organizational 2. Expand criterion domain of success to reflect multiple levels
citizenship behavior
a) Employee health and attitudes

b) Organizational sustainability
c) Organization–environment links
3. Fit people to static jobs via selection 3. Fit and redesign jobs to the needs of people, with the aid or technology and creativity
4. Train employees and leaders to lead others in task 4. Develop employees as facilitators to listen, address diverse needs of each other, and to
completion resolve conflicts
5. Design and structure work and the organization for 5. Redesign work and organization to maximize long-term development and the health of
efficiency employees
6. Diversity, work–life: identify common ground; assist 6. Recognize that work and non-work is permeable and that conflict may be inevitable;
employees to minimize conflicts in work–life balance find ways to capitalize on the gains that conflict can offer and that the permeability of
work/non-work can offer benefits
7. Labor–management relations and conflict negotiation 7. Train, educate, and model conflict management collectively among all employee levels
8. Organizational development soloed or considered 8. Recognize that development and change occur at individual, group, organizational,
separately from HRM environmental, and global levels. Change at one level affects other levels.
will be defined through multiple levels, and importantly, critical issues and information will come from contexts external to the
organization (Boudreau & Ziskin, 2011; Gratton, 2011; Hendry, 2003; Starik & Rands, 1995; Ulrich et al., 2012).
HRM is embedded within multiple layers of context. First, HRM functions fall within organizations and are directly influenced by
the proximal context including organizational structure, culture, leadership, diversity, and social responsibility. Second, HRM func-
tions quite directly influence the society from which job applicants, employees, and managers are drawn, and as a result, HR experts
should take the concerns of these different groups seriously. Lastly, HRM and the organization in which it is housed are embedded
within a third layer; what Boudreau and Ziskin call the dynamic environment. They suggest that the dynamic environment includes
such issues as globalization, technology, climate change, and economic, political, and social policy. Furthermore, they recognize
that the direction of the influence may be bi-directional, although they suggest that the larger context or layers typically influence
the embedded one. Thus, the dynamic environment influences and shapes what is an effective organization and the organization,
in turn, influences HRM. The influence can reflect multiple directions; however, we recognize that it order to be effective, HRM
must develop a broader perspective, be responsive to multiple layers of the environment (including the organization and the larger
society), and be active in shaping or initiating change in those same environmental layers.
Importantly, HRM must, using a long term, developmental lens, be consistent and strong advocates of employees. The ecological
model emphasizes the multi-directional influence of HR on organizations and the larger environment, as well as the environmental
influence on organizations, the environment on HRM, the organization on HRM, the organization on the environment, and so forth.
Ecological models have been successfully applied to a number of complex systems (e.g., family systems); it is time for these models
to become part of the science and practice of HRM and as advocates of respect for humanity at work.
References
Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 422–436. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0040968.
Alavosius, M. P., Adams, A. E., Ahern, D. K., & Follick, M. J. (2000). Behavioral approaches to organizational safety. In J. Austin, & J. E. Carr (Eds.), Handbook of applied
behavior analysis (pp. 351–373). Reno, NV: Context Press.
Alderfer, C. P. (1969). An empirical test of a new theory of human needs. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4, 142–175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0030-
5073(69)90004-X.
Ambec, S., & Lanoie, P. (2008). Does it pay to be green? A systematic overview. Academy of Management Perspectives, 22, 45–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMP.2008.
35590353.
American Psychological Association (2010). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association (Retrieved from
http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx#).
Aquino, K. (1995). Relationships among pay inequity, perceptions of procedural justice, and organizational citizenship. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 8,
21–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02621253.
Attridge, M. (2009). Measuring and managing employee work engagement: A review of the research and business literature. Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, 24,
383–398. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15555240903188398.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands–resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309–328. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
02683940710733115.
Barclay, L. J., Skarlicki, D. P., & Pugh, S. (2005). Exploring the role of emotions in injustice perceptions and retaliation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 629–643. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.629.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership: Good, better, best. Organizational Dynamics, 13(3), 26–40.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88, 207–218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.207.
Becherer, R. C., Morgan, F. W., & Richard, L. M. (1982). The job characteristics of industrial salespersons: Relationships to motivation and satisfaction. Journal of
Marketing, 46(4), 125–135.
Beer, M., & Spector, B. (1984). Human resources management: The integration of industrial relations and organizational behavior. In K. Rowland, & G. Ferris (Eds.),
Research in personnel and human resource management (pp. 261–297). Stanford: JAI Press.
Benson, G. S. (2006). Employee development, commitment and intention to turnover: A test of ‘employability’ policies in action. Human Resource Management Journal,
16, 173–192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.2006.00011.x.
Berg, J. M., Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2010). Perceiving and responding to challenges in job crafting at different ranks: When proactivity requires adaptivity.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(2–3), 158–186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.645.
Bernhard, F., & O'Driscoll, M. P. (2011). Psychological ownership in small family-owned businesses: Leadership style and nonfamily–employees' work attitudes and
behaviors. Group & Organization Management, 36, 345–384. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1059601111402684.
Bilbrey, P., & Jones, B. (2010). Tapping into your employees' big ideas—And getting them to think like owners. Employment Relations Today (Wiley), 36, 45–52. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1002/ert.20273.
Birdi, K., Allan, C., & Warr, P. (1997). Correlates and perceived outcomes of four types of employee development activity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 845–857.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.6.845.
Boesso, G., & Michelon, G. (2010). The effects of stakeholder prioritization on corporate financial performance: An empirical investigation. International Journal of
Management, 27(3), 470–496.
Bond, S. A., Tuckey, M. R., & Dollard, M. F. (2010). Psychosocial safety climate, workplace bullying, and symptoms of posttraumatic stress. Organization Development
Journal, 28, 38–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021320.
Boudreau, J. W., & Ziskin, I. (2011). The future of HR and effective organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 40, 225–266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2011.07.003.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1988). Interacting systems in human development. Research paradigms: Present and future. In N. Bolger, A. Caspi, G. Downey, & M. Moorehouse
(Eds.), Persons in context: Developmental processes (pp. 25–49). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological systems theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of Child Development, Vol. 6. (pp. 187–249). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development (2nd ed.). International Encyclopedia of Education, Vol. 3. (pp. 1643–1647). . Oxford: Elsevier,
1643–1647.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). Making human begins human: Bioecological perspective on human development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Brookman, J. T., Saeyoung, C., & Rennie, C. G. (2007). CEO Cash and stock-based compensation changes, layoff decisions, and shareholder value. Financial Review, 42,
99–119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6288.2007.00163.x.
Buchen, I. (2005). The future workforce: The 21st-century transformation of leaders, managers, and employees. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Byrne, Z. S., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2006). I get by with a little help from my friends: The interaction of chronic pain and organizational support on performance. Journal
of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 215–227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.11.3.215.
Byrne, Z. S., Palmer, C. E., Smith, C. L., & Weidert, J. M. (2011). The engaged employee face of organizations. In M. A. Sarlak (Ed.), The new faces of organizations in the 21st
century, Vol. 1. (pp. 93–135). Canada: NAISIT Publishers.
Callahan, E. (1990). Employment at will: The relationship between societal. American Business Law Journal, 28(3), 455–485.
Campion, M. A., Cheraskin, L., & Stevens, M. J. (1994). Career-related antecedents and outcomes of job rotation. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1518–1542. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2307/256797.
Cascio, W. F. (2008). To prosper, organizational psychology should… bridge application and scholarship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 455–468. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1002/job.528.
Champoux, J. E. (1991). A multivariate test of the job characteristics theory of work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12(5), 431–446.
Chapman, D. S., Uggerslev, K. L., Carroll, S. A., Piasentin, K. A., & Jones, D. A. (2005). Applicant attraction to organizations and job choice: A meta-analytic review of the
correlates of recruiting outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 928–944. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.928.
Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel
Psychology, 64, 89–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01203.x.
Cleveland, J. N., & Murphy, K. R. (1992). Analyzing performance appraisal as goal-directed behavior. In G. Ferris, & K. Rowland (Eds.), Research in personnel and human
resources management, Vol. 10. (pp. 121–185). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Colakoglu, S., Lepak, D. P., & Hong, Y. (2006). Measuring HRM effectiveness: Considering multiple stakeholders in a global context. Human Resource Management
Review, 16(2), 209–218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2006.03.003.
Conrad, P. (1988). Worksite health promotion: The social context. Social Science & Medicine, 26, 485–489. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(88)90381-4.
Coyle-Shapiro, J. M., & Shore, L. M. (2007). The employee–organization relationship: Where do we go from here? Human Resource Management Review, 17, 166–179.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2007.03.008.
Credo, K. R., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., & Young, R. L. (2010). Organizational ethics, leader–member exchange, and organizational support: Relationships with work-
place safety. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 17, 325–334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1548051810366712.
Datta, D. K., Guthrie, J. P., Basuil, D., & Pandey, A. (2010). Causes and effects of employee downsizing: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 36, 281–348.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206309346735.
Davidson, M. C. G., McPhail, R., & Barry, S. (2011). Hospitality HRM: Past, present and the future. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 23,
498–516.
DiBattista, R. A. (1991). Creating new approaches to recognize and deter sabotage. Public Personnel Management, 20(3), 347–352.
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1995.9503271992.
DuBois, C. Z., & Dubois, D. A. (2012). Strategic HRM as social design for environmental sustainability in organization. Human Resource Management, 51, 799–826. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21504.
Dulebohn, J. H., Ferris, G. R., & Stodd, J. T. (1995). The history and evolution of human resource management. In G. R. Ferris, D. T. Barnum, & S. D. Rosen (Eds.), Handbook
of human resource management (pp. 18–41). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S., & Lynch, P. (1997). Perceived organizational support, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 82, 812–820. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.5.812.
Fisher, L. (2010). Beware the toxic workplace. BRW, 32(10), 42–43.
Fisk, W. J. (2000). Estimates of potential nationwide productivity and health benefits from better indoor environments: An update. In J. D. Spengler, J. M. Samet, & J. F.
McCarthy (Eds.), Indoor air quality handbook (pp. 4.1–4.36). McGraw-Hill Professional.
Fock, H., Hui, M. K., Au, K., & Bond, M. (2013). Moderation effects of power distance on the relationship between types of empowerment and employee satisfaction.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44, 281–298. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022112443415.
Folger, R. (1993). Justice, motivation, and performance beyond role requirements. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6(3), 239–248.
Fombrun, C. J., Tichy, N. M., & Devanna, M. S. (1984). Strategic human resource management. Canada: John Wiley & Sons.
Forbes, F. S., & Jones, I. M. (1986). A comparative, attitudinal, and analytical study of dismissal of at-will employees without cause. Labor Law Journal, 37(3), 157–166.
Freeman (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman.
Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A review and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40(2), 287–322.
Geller, E. S. (1990). Performance management and occupational safety: Start with a safety belt program. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 11, 149–174.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J075v11n01_10.
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader–member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82,
827–844. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.6.827.
Gilbert, R., & Constantine, K. (2005). When strength can't last a lifetime: Vocational challenges of male workers in early and middle adulthood. Men and Masculinities, 7,
424–433. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1097184X03257582.
Goins, S., & Gruca, T. S. (2008). Understanding competitive and contagion effects of layoff announcements. Corporate Reputation Review, 11, 12–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1057/crr.2008.3.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader–member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years:
Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219–247. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5.
Gratton, L. (2011). The next leadership agenda. Business Strategy Review, 22, 7–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8616.2011.00789.x.
Greenhaus, J., & Powell, G. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of work–family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31, 72–92. http://dx.doi.
org/10.5465/AMR.2006.19379625.
Hackman, J., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250–279.
Hackman, J., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hall, D. T., Feldman, E., & Kim, N. (2013). Meaningful work and the protean career. In B. J. Dik, Z. S. Byrne, & M. F. Steger (Eds.), Purpose and meaning in the workplace
(pp. 57–78). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/14183-004.
Hambrick, D. C. (2007). The field of management devotion to theory: Too much of a good thing. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1346–1352.
Hargrave, G. E., Hiatt, D., Alexander, R., & Shaffer, I. A. (2008). EAP treatment impact on presenteeism and absenteeism: Implications for return on investment. Journal
of Workplace Behavioral Health, 23(3), 283–293.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 268–279. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.268.
Heerwagen, J. H. (2000). Green buildings, organizational success, and occupant productivity. Building Research and Information, 28(5), 353–367. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1080/096132100418500.
Hemingway, M. A., & Conte, J. M. (2003). The perceived fairness of layoff practices. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 1588–1617. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.
1559-1816.2003.tb01965.x.
Hendrick, H. W., & Kleiner, B. M. (Eds.). (2002). Macro-ergonomics: Theory, methods, and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Hendry, C. (2003). Applying employment system theory to the analysis of national model of HRM. International Journal of HRM, 14, 1430–1442.
Hershcovis, S. M., & Barling, J. (2010). Towards a multi-foci approach to workplace aggression: A meta-analytic review of outcomes from different perpetrators. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 31, 24–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.621.
Hershcovis, M., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K. A., Dupré, K. E., Inness, M., et al. (2007). Predicting workplace aggression: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,
92, 228–238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.228.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The motivation to work. New York: John Wiley.
Hoffman, A. J., & Henn, R. (2008). Overcoming psychological barriers to green building. Organization & Environment, 21, 390–419. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1086026608326129.
Hoffmann, D. A., & Stetzer, A. (1996). A cross-level investigation of factors influencing unsafe behaviors and accidents. Personnel Psychology, 49(2), 307–339.
Hom, P. W., Tsui, A. S., Lee, T. W., Ping Ping, F., Wu, J. B., Zhang, A., et al. (2009). Explaining employment relationships with social exchange and job embeddedness.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 277–297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013453.
http://openjurist.org/281/f3d/929/united-states-cellular-investment-company-of-los-angeles-inc-v-gte-mobilnet-inc-gte-gte
Hulin, C. (1991). Adaptation, persistence, and commitment in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (Eds.), (2nd ed.). Handbook of industrial and
organizational psychology, Vol. 2. (pp. 445–505). . Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Jensen, J. M., Opland, R. A., & Ryan, A. (2010). Psychological contracts and counterproductive work behaviors: Employee responses to transactional and relational
breach. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 555–568. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869-009-9148-7.
Jensvold v. Shalala (1996). 925 F. Supp. 1109 (U.S. Dist. Court, Md., 1996).
Jones, D. A. (2009). Getting even with one's supervisor and one's organization: Relationships among types of injustice, desires for revenge, and counterproductive
work behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(4), 525–542. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.563.
Jones, D. A. (2010). Getting even for interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace: Triggers of revenge motives and behavior. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Insidious workplace
behavior (pp. 101–147). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724 (Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/256287).
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.
Kaufman, B. E. (2015). The historical development and current status of American HRM: The story as seen by an outside observer. Human Resource Management
Review (in press).
Kelloway, E., Francis, L., Prosser, M., & Cameron, J. E. (2010). Counterproductive work behavior as protest. Human Resource Management Review, 20, 18–25. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.03.014.
Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2000). Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Kuvaas, B., & Dysvik, A. (2010). Exploring alternative relationships between perceived investment in employee development, perceived supervisor support and
employee outcomes. Human Resource Management Journal, 20, 138–156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.2009.00120.x.
Labovitz, G. H. (1977). Managing the personal side of the personnel move abroad. Advanced Management Journal (03621863), 42(3), 26.
Law, R., Dollard, M. F., Tuckey, M. R., & Dormann, C. (2011). Psychosocial safety climate as a lead indicator of workplace bullying and harassment, job resources,
psychological health and employee engagement. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 43(5), 1782–1793. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2011.04.010.
Lawler, E. E. (2011). Creating a new employment deal: Total rewards and the new workforce. Organizational Dynamics, 40, 302–309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
orgdyn.2011.07.007.
Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. (1999). The human resource architecture: Toward a theory of human capital allocation and development. Academy of Management Review, 24,
31–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1999.1580439.
Love, L. F., & Singh, P. (2011). Workplace branding: Leveraging human resources management practices for competitive advantage through “best employer” surveys.
Journal of Business Psychology, 26, 175–181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869-011-9226-5.
Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformation and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the
MLQ literature. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 385–425.
Macklem, K. (2005). The toxic workplace. Maclean's, 118(5), 34–35.
Martinko, M. J., Gundlach, M. J., & Douglas, S. C. (2002). Toward an integrative theory of counterproductive workplace behavior: A causal reasoning perspective.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 36–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00192.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370–396. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0054346.
Meisinger, S. (2007, January). Workforce planning anticipates change. HRMagazine, 10.
Milne, S. H., Blum, T. C., & Roman, P. M. (1994). Factors influencing employees' propensity to use an employee assistance program. Personnel Psychology, 47(1),
123–145.
Murphy, K., & Cleveland, J. (1995). Understanding performance appraisal: Social, organizational and goal-oriented perspectives. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Naumann, S. E., Bennett, N., Bies, R. J., & Martin, C. L. (1998). Laid off, but still loyal: The influence of perceived justice and organizational support. International Journal of
Conflict Management, 9(4), 356–368.
O'Boyle, E. H., Forsyth, D. R., & O'Boyle, A. S. (2011). Bad apples or bad barrels: An examination of group- and organizational-level effects in the study of counterpro-
ductive work behavior. Group & Organization Management, 36, 39–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1059601110390998.
Ones, D. S., & Dilchert, S. (2012). Environmental sustainability at work: A call to action. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5,
444–466. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2012.01478.x.
Palmon, O., & Sun, H. (1997). Layoff announcements: Stock market impact and financial performance. FM: The Journal of The Financial Management Association, 26(3),
54–68.
Paradis, L. F., & Usui, W. M. (1987). Hospice volunteers: The impact of personality characteristics on retention and job performance. Hospice Journal, 3, 3–30. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1177/1049909110364017.
Patient, D. L., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2010). Increasing interpersonal and informational justice when communicating negative news: The role of the manager's empathic
concern and moral development. Journal of Management, 36, 555–578. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206308328509.
Paul, K. I., & Moser, K. (2009). Unemployment impairs mental health: Meta-analyses. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74, 264–282. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2009.
01.001.
Penner, L. A. (2002). Dispositional and organizational influences on sustained volunteerism: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 447–467. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/1540-4560.00270.
Pfeffer, J. (2005). Changing mental models: HR's most important task. Human Resource Management, 44, 123–128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20053.
Reason, J. T. (1997). Managing the risks of organizational accidents. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing Company.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555–572.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256693.
Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. (2000). The development of psychological contract breach and violation: A longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(5),
525–547.
Roehling, M. V. (2002). The ‘good cause norm’ in employment relations: Empirical evidence and policy implications. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 14(2),
91–104.
Roman, P. M., & Blum, T. C. (1988). Reaffirmation of the core technology of employee assistance programs. The ALMACAN, 19(8), 17–22.
Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2(2), 121–139.
Rudolph, H. R., & Peluchette, J. V. (1993). The power gap: Is sharing or accumulating power the answer? Journal of Applied Business Research, 9(3), 12–20.
Salthouse, T. A. (1984). Effects of age and skill in typing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 345–371. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.113.3.345.
Salthouse, T. (2012). Consequences of age-related cognitive declines. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 201–226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-
100328.
Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W., & van Rhenen, W. (2008). Workaholism, burnout, and work engagement: Three of a kind or three different kinds of employee well-being?
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57, 173–203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2007.00285.x.
Schawbel, D. (2012, July 18). Dave Ulrich on the future of human resources. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/danschawbel/2012/07/18/dave-ulrich-on-
the-future-of-human-resources/
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research
findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–274. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.262.
Schuler, R. S. (1992). Strategic human resources management: Linking the people with the strategic needs of the business. Organizational Dynamics, 21(1), 18–32.
Schuler, R. S., & Jackson, S. E. (2007). Strategic human resource management: A reader (2 ed.). London: Blackwell.
Schultz, K. S., & Adams, G. A. (2007). In search of a unifying paradigm for understanding aging and work in the 21st century. In K. S. Shultz, & G. A. Adams (Eds.), Aging
and work in the 21st century (pp. 303–319). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Shore, L. M., Tetrick, L. E., Taylor, M., Shapiro, J., Liden, R. C., Parks, J., et al. (2004). The employee–organization relationship: A timely concept in a period of transition. In
J. J. Martocchio (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management, Vol. 23. (pp. 291–370). Elsevier Science/JAI Press.
Shrivastava, P. (1995). The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability. Academy of Management Review, 20, 936–960. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.
1995.9512280026.
Silva, S., Lima, M., & Baptista, C. (2004). OSCI: An organisational and safety climate inventory. Safety Science, 42(3), 205–220.
Singh, P. (1994). Perception and reactions to inequity as a function of social comparison referents and hierarchical levels. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24,
557–565. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1994.tb00599.x.
Smith, E. B., & Kuntz, P. (2013, May 2). Disclosed: The pay gap between CEOs and employees. Bloomberg BusinessWeek (Retrieved from http://www.businessweek.com/
articles/2013-05-02/disclosed-the-pay-gap-between-ceos-and-employees).
Starik, M., & Rands, G. P. (1995). Weaving an integrated web: Multilevel and multisystem perspectives of ecologically sustainable organizations. Academy of
Management Review, 20, 908–935. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1995.9512280025.
Steger, M. F. (2009). Meaning in life. In S. J. Lopez (Ed.), Oxford handbook of positive psychology (pp. 679–687) (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Steger, M. F., & Dik, B. J. (2010). Work as meaning. In P. A. Linley, S. Harrington, & N. Page (Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive psychology and work (pp. 131–142). Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.
Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Tetrick, L. E., & Quick, J. (2011). Overview of occupational health psychology: Public health in occupational settings. In J. Quick, & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of
occupational health psychology (pp. 3–20) (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Tetrick, L. E., Quick, J. C., & Quick, J. D. (2005). Prevention perspectives in occupational health psychology. In A. -S. G. Antoniou, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Research companion
to organizational health psychology (pp. 209–217). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Thomas, R. S. (2003). Should directors reduce executive pay? Hastings Law Journal, 54, 2–56.
Thumwimon, S., & Takahashi, Y. (2010). A prospective process for implementing human resource development (HRD) for corporate social responsibility (CSR).
Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 2(1), 10–32.
Tripp, T. M., & Bies, R. J. (2010). ‘Righteous’ anger and revenge in the workplace: The fantasies, the feuds, the forgiveness. In M. Potegal, G. Stemmler, & C. Spielberger
(Eds.), International handbook of anger: Constituent and concomitant biological, psychological, and social processes (pp. 413–431). New York, NY: Springer
Science + Business Media.
Tudge, J., Morkova, I., Hatfield, B. E., & Karnik, R. B. (2009). Uses and misuses of Bronfenbrenner's bioecological theory of human development. Journal of Family Theory
and Review, 1, 198–210.
Ulrich, D., Younger, J., Brockbank, W., & Ulrich, M. (2012). HR from the outside in: Six competencies for the future of human resources. McGraw Hill.
United States Cellular Inv. Co. of L.A., Inc. v. GTE Mobilnet, Inc. (2001). aff'd, 281 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. 2002).
United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO v. Weber et al. (1979). 443 U.S. 193; 99 S. Ct., 2721. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/443/193.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
Waddock, S., & Graves, S. (1997). The corporate social performance–financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303–319.
Wanberg, C. R., Bunce, L. W., & Gavin, M. B. (1999). Perceived fairness of layoffs among individuals who have been laid off: A longitudinal study. Personnel Psychology,
52(1), 59–84.
Webber, A. M. (1998, October 31). Danger: Toxic company. Retrieved from http://www.fastcompany.com/35667/dangertoxic-company
Williams, J. (1999). Unbending gender: Why family and work conflict and what to do about it. Oxford University Press.
Wilson, S. (1955). The man in the grey flannel suit. Mattituck, NY: Amereon House.
Wilson, J., & Musick, M. (2000). The effects of volunteering on the volunteer. Law and Contemporary Problems, 62(4), 141–168 (Retrieved from http://scholarship.law.
duke.edu/lcp/vol62/iss4/11).
Witt, L. A., & Carlson, D. S. (2006). The work–family interface and job performance: Moderating effects of conscientiousness and perceived organizational support.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 343–357. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.11.4.343.
Wright, T. A., Cropanzano, R., & Bonett, D. G. (2007). The moderating role of employee positive well being on the relation between job satisfaction and job performance.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 93–104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.12.2.93.
Wright, P., & McMahan, G. (1992). Theoretical perspectives for strategic human resource management. Journal of Management, 18(2), 295–320.
Wright, P. M., & McMahan, G. C. (2011). Exploring human capital: Putting ‘human’ back into strategic human resource management. Human Resource Management
Journal, 21, 93–104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.2010.00165.x.
Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179–201. http://
dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2001.4378011.
Yu, M., Lee, Y., & Tsai, B. (2010). Relationships among stressors, work–family conflict, and emotional exhaustion: A study of electronics industry employees in China.
Social Behavior and Personality, 38, 829–844. http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2010.38.6.829.
Zhang, Y., & Begley, T. M. (2011). Power distance and its moderating impact on empowerment and team participation. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 22, 3601–3617. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2011.560877.
Zhang, W., & Richardson, S. (2010). Are older workers less productive? A case study of aged care workers in Australia. Economic Record, 86, 115–123. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1475-4932.2010.00665.x.
Zohar, D. (2010). Thirty years of safety climate research: Reflections and future directions. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 42, 1517–1522. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
aap.2009.12.019.

The Future of HR Is RH...

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Future of HR Is RH...

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HUMRES-00502; No of Pages 16

Human Resource Management Review xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Human Resource Management Review

The future of HR is RH: Respect for humanity at work

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 970 491 4135.

• Act in ways that beneﬁt the organization

Fig. 1. Current and future HR/RH stakeholders.

1. Current and emerging stakeholders: broadening HRM/RH constituent base

2. Ecological Systems Model, HRM, and RH in the future

2.1. Short vs. long term relationships

2.1.1. Economic vs. psychological priorities

2.2. Life-course changes: development and decline

2.3. Multiple contexts and criteria for success

2.4. Permeable and reciprocal inﬂuence among contexts and individual

3. Moving to the future of HRM: respect for humanity at work

3.1. The core of the system: the individual

3.1.1. Engagement and well-being

3.1.2. Talent acquisition, development, and retention

3.2. Reciprocal permeability between individual and contexts

One proposition of the Ecological Systems Model states that

Selected examples as reﬂected in interpersonal relationships are presented below.

3.2.1. HR communication and leader development

3.2.2. Interrelationships and employee–organization dynamics

3.3. Contextual inﬂuences on individual development

3.3.1. Environmentally sound and safe buildings and workplace

3.3.2. Diversity and legal issues

3.4. Sustainability of HRM/RH

4. Respect for humanity: what would HR in the future look like?

5. Implications: what we know, what we do not know?

Current HR systems: What we know Future HR systems: What we need

a) Employee health and attitudes

You might also like