Public Management Review

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpxm20

A human resource management review on public

management and public administration research:
stop right there…before we go any further…

Paul Boselie, Jasmijn Van Harten & Monique Veld

To cite this article: Paul Boselie, Jasmijn Van Harten & Monique Veld (2021) A human
resource management review on public management and public administration research: stop
right there…before we go any further…, Public Management Review, 23:4, 483-500, DOI:
10.1080/14719037.2019.1695880

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1695880

© 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa Published online: 26 Nov 2019.

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.

Submit your article to this journal Article views: 33758

View related articles View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 16 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rpxm20
PUBLIC MANAGEMENT REVIEW
2021, VOL. 23, NO. 4, 483–500
https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1695880

A human resource management review on public

management and public administration research: stop
right there. . .before we go any further. . .
Paul Boselie, Jasmijn Van Harten and Monique Veld
Utrecht University School of Governance (USG), Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

ABSTRACT
This overview paper focuses on the increased popularity of human resource manage-
ment (HRM) in public management and public administration research. This is
reflected in empirical articles published in scientific journals linked to HRM, public
management and public administration in the period 2000–2016. The findings of the
paper show some cross-fertilization between the different disciplines and the lack of it
in some areas. The outcomes also provide input for a future research agenda including
alternative theories, models, methods and research techniques for rigour and relevant
HRM research in the public sector domain.

KEYWORDS Public management; public administration; human resource management; HRM; literature review

Introduction
Human resource management (HRM) is gaining popularity in public management
research. In the period 1999–2002, 5 per cent of the publications in Public Management
Review (PMR) were explicitly focused on HRM. In 2015–2016, this has increased to 14 per
cent according to Osborne (2017) who performed an analysis on paper topics across 1999–
2002 and 2015–2016 in PMR. HRM has not only gained popularity, but has become one of
the dominant themes in PMR comparable to other popular themes such as performance
management and accountability. In line with Osborne’s analysis (2017) we observe more
publications on HRM in the public sector domain within Public Management (PM) and
Public Administration (PA) journals such as Public Management Review on the one hand,
and publications on HRM in public sector contexts in HRM journals such as Human
Resource Management Journal on the other hand.
Before researchers go any further with research on HRM in public settings, we need
to ‘stop right there’ and identify the lessons that can be learned from prior research in
the fields of PA/PM and HRM. Seen from an academic perspective, identifying
important lessons on the crossroads of HRM and PA/PM could enable that research
in one field enhances research progressions in the other field. This means that HRM
research insights would inform and enrich the PA/PM literature, and vice versa. The
academic community has seen similar developments in other disciplines before, for
example related to the empirical research development of HRM and organizational

CONTACT Paul Boselie [email protected]

© 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and repro-
duction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
484 P. BOSELIE ET AL.

behaviour (OB) in the 1990s and 2000s (Wright and Boswell 2002). HRM research
benefited from the theoretical and methodological rigour in OB research, while OB
research was affected by the contextualization that characterized HRM research.
From a practitioner perspective, determining the important lessons means that we
can avoid the risk of imitating ‘best practices’ in HRM, that are developed and tested in
private companies (Pfeffer 1994), to the public sector domain, without fully consider-
ing contextual differences (institutional, political and cultural) between sectors (Brown
2004). A textbook case is the implementation of the HR practice pay-for-performance
in the public sector. PA-research has demonstrated that this best practice does not
stimulate individual performance. On the contrary, pay-for-performance is found to
non-significantly or even negatively impact public sector employees’ attitudes and
motivation, because of, amongst others, institutional constraints in the public sector
(Perry, Engbers, and Jun 2009).
The central question of this paper is therefore: What do we empirically know about
HRM in public sector contexts from the disciplines of PM/PA and HRM? In addition,
to what extent is there a degree of cross-fertilization among these disciplines? Finally,
the insights that we gain when studying these questions can be used to construct a
research agenda. In other words: What lessons can be learned that could guide future
research?

What is HRM?
There is a substantial body of literature since the early 1980s on HRM. Our definition
of HRM is the following based on Boselie (2014): HRM involves management deci-
sions related to policies and practices that together shape the employment relationship
and are aimed at achieving certain goals . These goals concern performance goals
which have been defined and measured in multiple ways. Using the Harvard model of
HRM, Beer, Boselie, and Brewster (2015) bundle these goals into a multidimensional
performance construct. Performance is not only regarded as organizational effective-
ness (that reflects financial performance indicators and productivity measures for
instance), but also as creating employee well-being (reflected in satisfied and healthy
employees) and societal well-being (e.g. an organization’s impact on society).
Delery and Doty (1996) make a distinction between three modes of strategic HRM
theorizing – universalistic (best practices), contingency and configurational – high-
lighting the best practice versus best-fit proposition in HRM research. The best practice
approaches (universalistic) build on the notion of one-size-fits-all in HRM. The best-fit
approaches (contingency and configurational) are more sophisticated emphasizing
that the internal and external organizational context affects HRM choices, HRM
outcomes and the relationship between HRM and outcomes. The complexity of public
sector organizations, both internally and externally, requires a best-fit approach in
which context matters.
In a literature review of 104 empirical articles on the added value of HRM Boselie,
Dietz, and Boon (2005) focused on journal articles that used a ‘multiple HRM-style
practices’ operationalization of HRM. In contrast to for example psychological
approaches to employment relationships like OB in which the focus is mainly on single
HR practices such as recruitment, HRM is considered a bundle or system of practices that
shape the employment relationships in and around organizations. A bundle or system of
human resource practices draws on notions of high-commitment HR systems, high-
 PUBLIC MANAGEMENT REVIEW 485

performance work systems and high-involvement work systems existing of coherent and
consistent sets of practices like selective recruitment and selection, socialization, training
and development, performance appraisal and pay, employee autonomy, teamwork and
job design (Boxall and Purcell 2016; Luu 2018). Internal- or horizontal fit suggests that
the alignment of individual HR practices within a bundle or system strengthens organi-
zational performance. The HR system approaches are generally applied in HRM research
in private and public sector organizations. One of the most popular theories in con-
temporary HRM research is the AMO theory. The underlying idea of the AMO theory is
that employees show positive attitudes (e.g. affective commitment and job satisfaction)
and desired behaviours (e.g. organizational citizenship behaviour and excellent service
quality) when (Boxall and Purcell 2016):

(1) They have the Abilities in terms of knowledge, skills and competences to do
their job (through selective recruitment and selection, training and develop-
ment, and coaching);
(2) They are Motivated (through performance appraisal and feedback, payment
and promotion opportunities);
(3) They have the Opportunity to participate in decision making and the shaping of
their own work (through employee involvement, autonomous teamwork, job
rotation, job enrichment and job crafting).

The HR system or bundle approach is often built on the theoretical foundation of the
AMO theory. Huselid (1995) was one of the first to apply the HRM system approach
and AMO model to HRM and performance research. He constructed HRM bundles of
HR practices (horizontal fit)and studied the so-called vertical alignment of the HRM
bundles to the business strategy and the impact on performance. This vertical fit has
been a subject of many HRM studies over the past decades. The necessary fit between
HRM and context (1. horizontal fit between individual HR practices; 2. vertical fit
between HRM and the business strategy; 3. organizational fit between HRM and
organizational systems, structure and culture; 4. environmental fit between HRM
and the external institutional contexts) is far more complicated as suggested by
Paauwe, Guest, and Wright (2013). Given the highly institutionalized contexts these
notions on fit and alignment are even more relevant for HRM research in public sector
contexts. This requires contingency and configurational approaches as suggested by
Delery and Doty (1996) in combination with institutional approaches as suggested by
Paauwe (2004).
We decided not to include the concept of leadership in our analysis because we
think that HRM itself does not include leadership, although leadership and manage-
ment are necessary to shape HRM (see our HRM definition). A different but related
popular concept – people management – does incorporate the concept of leadership
(see Knies and Leisink 2018). People management, however, has only recently been
developed in the HRM literature.
The Harvard model is a theoretical framework that includes multiple stakeholders,
organizational context and a multidimensional performance construct (Beer, Boselie,
and Brewster 2015). The AMO model can be considered a theoretical framework for
specifying HRM and the Harvard model a theoretical framework for the shaping of an
HRM value chain and the definition of performance affected by context and stake-
holders involved.
486 P. BOSELIE ET AL.

What is the public sector domain?

Definitions vary on what the public sector domain entails, we therefore provide a short
overview of the most common criteria that are used and elucidate the perspective that
is central to our review. There seems to be a growing consensus that there is no such
thing as the public sector (Knies and Leisink 2018). Generally, the three formal criteria
of government ownership, source of funding and degree of political control with
organizational activities are used to distinguish public and private sector organizations
(Bozeman 1987). This means that, ideally, public sector organizations are publicly
owned, funded by taxpayers, and densely regulated by law (Kjeldsen and Jacobsen
2013). Although these criteria can usually be applied to general government activities,
public services such as education and healthcare are not always organized in such a way
and could contain private sector characteristics. For example, hospital care in the
Netherlands is delivered by organizations that are legally private bodies and have a
complex funding system in which the Dutch healthcare authority (an autonomous
administrative authority) annually assesses a budget per hospital, but the hospital only
receives their funding through making arrangements with health insurers, patients and
other healthcare organizations on how much they receive per health care activity.
Whereas in the UK, hospitals are part of the National Health Service and can be
regarded as state-owned and directly funded by taxpayers. Despite their organizational
structure, in both countries, it is the mission of hospitals to deliver health care services
in such a way that it meets the needs of society (e.g. high-quality and efficient hospital
care that is available for all citizens). In line with Rainey (2009), we therefore use the
additional criterion of public value creation to include organizations that deliver public
services but are not always state-owned or entirely funded by taxpayers. The above
example shows that such organizations could even be non-profit or private organiza-
tions as it is their mission that makes them different from profit-seeking organizations
(Knies and Leisink 2018).

Methods
Search strategy
To ensure high-quality research, we restricted our search to HRM and public sector
domain articles that have appeared in pre-eminent, international journals. This decision
meant that we had to exclude valuable work published in books, reports, unpublished
papers and dissertations. Following a similar approach of focusing on target-journals as
used by Wright and Boswell (2002) and Boselie, Dietz, and Boon (2005), we focused on
eight journals with which readers of Public Management Review were likely to be
familiar. First, Human Resource Management (HRM), Human Resource Management
Journal (HRMJ) and the International Journal of Human Resource Management
(IJHRM). HRM, HRMJ and the IJHRM represent three mainstream HRM journals
that are representative for the field. Second, Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory (JPART), Public Administration (PA), Public Administration Review (PAR)
and Public Management Review (PMR). JPART, PA, PAR and PMR represent the field
of PA and PMThird, Review of Public Personnel Administration (RoPPA) can be
considered a PA and PM journal with a very specific focus on HRM that needs to be
included in the analysis given the journal’s focus on public sector employees. The eight
journals are all listed in the ABS (the Association of Business Schools) 2015 journal list.
 PUBLIC MANAGEMENT REVIEW 487

All journals have high impact scores above 2.00 according to the Web of Science in
2017. Based on the ABS 2015 journal ranking and the Web of Science 2017 journal
impact factors, all eight journals represent high quality and high impact research.
Given the broad range of public sector specific journals, for example related to
subsectors such as healthcare (e.g. Health Care Management Review) and education (e.
g. Teaching and Teacher Education) we only include general HRM, PM and PA journals.
Our deliberate choice for HRM versus PM/PA journals provides a unique insight in the
different contrasting disciplines with, on the one, the more managerial and psychological
HRM discipline and, on the other hand, the more contextual PM and PA discipline(s).
Both sides of the same coin (with coin defined as HRM research in public domains) each
have their own communities, audiences and journals. Our analysis provides opportu-
nities to study these research communities and the degree of cross-fertilization (RQ 2).

Selection criteria
First, the selection process included a search for articles in the eight journals using the
keywords ‘HRM’, ‘public’, ‘public sector’ and ‘human resource’ in the title, keywords
and/or the abstract. This resulted in 190 references. Second, full texts were screened
using the following criteria. First, only articles that presented empirical research were
selected in line with another literature review by Mauro, Cinquini, and Grossi (2017).
Second, only articles that appeared between 2000–2016 were selected. 2000 marks the
beginning of a new era in both theory and practice (a new millennium) including
several well-cited HRM and public sector publications in PA/PM and HRM journals,
for example the publications of Teo (2000), Hondeghem and Vandermeulen (2000)
and Nutley (2000). Third, articles were checked on the definition of HRM and included
when they adequately fitted our operationalization of HRM as a composition of
multiple HR practices. Fourth, articles were checked on a meaningful use of the
concept of the public sector domain. This implies that the inclusion of a single control
variable for public sector in a regression analysis without explaining how the public
sector was defined and/or measured, was not regarded as meeting our selection
criteria. Criteria 1, 3 and 4 were frequently violated. For example, we excluded 11
articles because they did not present empirical data and 16 articles were excluded
because they did not use the public sector in a meaningful way. Finally, we decided that
each article needed to reflect a unique sample. We checked the samples of articles
written by the same author. In case of multiple articles per sample, we selected the first
published article and deleted the others as including all articles on the same sample
could potentially bias our findings. In all, we deleted 113 articles, leading to a final
sample of 77 articles. Of these, 40 articles stem from the three HRM journals and 37
articles come from the five PM and PA journals reflecting a good balance (see Table 1).

Criteria for analysis

A full-text analysis has been applied to the 77 selected articles using the following
criteria:

● Research design;
● Continents/regions;
● Organization type and public subsector;
488 P. BOSELIE ET AL.

● Type of respondents;
● Applied theory/model;
● HRM theme and main findings on the theme.

Results
In this section, we first present the results regarding the research characteristics of the
77 articles, followed by the results on theories/models and HRM themes.

Research characteristics
Type of empirical study
As can be seen from Table 1, 68 per cent of the journal articles (N = 52) were based on
quantitative data, mostly survey data. 23 per cent of the articles (N = 18) were built on
qualitative data, mostly interview data. Srinivasan and Chandwani (2014), for example,
used interviews with top managers to study the HR challenges arising from privatiza-
tion and corporatization of Indian healthcare facilities, and the new emerging business
models being used in healthcare delivery. 9 per cent of the articles applied mixed
methods combining quantitative and qualitative data (N = 7). The study by Kooij et al.
(2014) represents mixed method research using multiple sources such as interviews,
focus groups, policy documents and surveys on managing ageing workers in a Dutch
Ministry. Overall, there was a wide range of research methods applied in our article
sample. Although rare, we also observed the application of alternative research meth-
ods such as archival data analysis (Melton and Meier 2016), action research (Pichault
2007), focus groups (Butterfield, Edwards, and Woodall 2004) and observations
(Redman et al. 2000). When looking at the prevalence of the various research methods
over the eight journals, we observed that JPART, PA and PAR presented mainly
quantitative studies, while HRMJ, the IJHRM and RoPPA, presented varied methods.

Table 1. Details of studies included in the review.

HRM HRMJ IJRHM JPART PA PAR PMR RoPPA Total
(N = 5) (N = 8) (N = 27) (N = 2) (N = 3) (N = 4) (N = 10) (N = 18) (N = 77)
Publication year
2000-2003 - 1 4 1 - - - 1 7
2004-2007 - 1 8 - 1 - 3 4 17
2008-2011 - 2 5 - 1 2 3 4 18
2012-2016 5 4 10 1 1 2 4 9 36
Type of empirical study
Quantitative 4 3 14 2 3 4 9 13 52
Qualitative 1 3 8 - - - 1 4 18
Combination - 2 5 - - - - 1 7
qualitative and
quantitative
HRM theme
Added value HRM 5 5 19 1 2 4 9 11 56
(re) shaping of HRM - 3 8 1 1 - 1 7 21
HRM = Human Resource Management; HRMJ = Human Resource Management Journal; IJHRM = the
International Journal of Human Resource Management; JPART = Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory; PA = Public Administration; PAR = Public Administration Review; PMR = Public Management
Review; RoPPA = Review of Public Personnel Administration.
 PUBLIC MANAGEMENT REVIEW 489

The 68 per cent quantitative research papers is in line with the further quantification
of the fields of HRM, PA and PM. The latter is also reflected in the rise of behavioural
PA (Grimmelikhuijsen et al. 2017) and more attention for lab experiments that is
strongly related with the further psychologization of applied sciences (Godard 2014).
Finally, it is important to note that, with the exception of two recent studies (Melton
and Meier 2016; Kilroy et al. 2017), all studies were cross-sectional in nature.

Continent
The majority of the articles came from Europe (N = 33) with the following leading
countries: the UK (N = 16), the Netherlands (N = 6) and Belgium (N = 5). 20 articles
came from North-America with the USA taking account for 17 studies and Canada 3.
Asia (N = 12) was represented by a wide range of studies from various countries such
as China, India, Japan, Jordan, Korea, Malesia, Oman and Vietnam. Africa was
represented by 6 studies and Oceania also by 6, the latter all based on Australian data.

Public subsectors
The data in 77 articles were based on different organization types with healthcare
organizations (N = 20), local government (N = 18), central government (N = 13),
education (N = 8) and provinces/state government (N = 8) as the most popular
organizations for empirical data analysis on HRM in the public sector. Healthcare
organizations such as hospitals and nursing homes have already attracted a lot of HRM
research attention given the major reforms and employee related challenges (for
example ageing population and ageing healthcare workers). The study by West et al.
(2002) on HRM and mortality rates in hospitals is an example of this type of healthcare
research. Another example is the study by Mostafa (2016) on high-performance HR
practices, work stress and quit intentions in the public health sector.

Type of respondents
Employees were by far the most popular data sources in the 77 articles (N = 30 studies
that used a single data source of employees). In the HR process model by Wright and
Nishii (2013) a distinction is made between intended HR practices (policies and
strategy; input from executive directors, HR directors and top managers), actual HR
practices (implementation; input from frontline managers) and perceived HR practices
(perception; input from employees). We counted only a limited number of articles that
included data from managers (line managers, middle managers and superintendents)
that relate to actual HR practices in the model presented above. Overall, there was a lot
of attention for HRM perceptions of employees (perceived) and to some extent HRM
policies (intentions) from top management and the HR professionals. One remarkable
and positive finding is the relatively large number of multiple source data articles
(N = 27), for example using data from top management in combination with
employees.

Theories and models

There was a wide range of theories and models used in the 77 articles and to obtain an
overview we categorized them into 5 groups (see Table 2) that we describe below, in
order of frequency. We deliberately use the concepts of ‘theory’ and ‘model’ because we
490 P. BOSELIE ET AL.

Table 2. Theories and models.

Nr. of citing articles Nr. of citing articles
in PM journals in HRM journals
(% of selected (% of selected
Theory/model: articles) articles)
HRM models/theories (N = 50): 20 (54%) 30 (75%)
e.g. HRM bundles, HR value chain, system strength, HR
attribution theory, human capital theory, social capital theory,
resource based view
OB theories/models (N = 39): 18 (49%) 21 (53%)
e.g. fit theory, leadership theory, social identity theory,
motivation theories, social exchange theory
PA theories/models (N = 16): 11 (30%) 5 (13%)
e.g. public service motivation, (neo)-institutional theory,
rational choice theory, public values
General management/economic theories and models 7 (19%) 6 (15%)
(N = 13):
e.g. socio-technique, transaction cost theory, process theory
No theory/model presented (N = 5) 3 (8%) 2 (5%)

do not want to get into a discussion about whether a conceptual framework is a theory
or a model.
The first category that we distinguish includes typical HRM theories such as system
strength, HR attribution theory, human capital theory, social capital theory and the
resource-based view. In 50 articles, HRM theories were the foundation of the research.
The second category represents OB theories. These are psychological theories often
aimed at employee attitudes and behaviours in organizations. 39 articles in our review
used OB theories such as social identity theory, social exchange theory, motivation theory
and leadership theory. As can be seen in Table 2, the HRM theories (category 1) and OB
theories (category 2) were popular in both the PM/PA and HRM journals in our review.
OB theories were almost equally used in HRM and PM/PA journal articles. HRM
theories were used slightly more in HRM journal articles but a significant amount of
54 per cent of the PM/PA journal articles in our selection used HRM theories as well. For
instance, Gould-Williams (2004) in Public Administration used a framework of high-
commitment HRM to examine the impact of HR practices on employee attitudes and
behaviours in local government organizations. Apparently, the HRM and OB theories
have found their way to research on HRM in public management and public adminis-
tration journals. The third category of theories refers to PA. 16 articles in this review
applied PA theories or models such as public service motivation (PSM) theory, neo-
institutional theory in a political context, rational choice theory and public values theory.
Most of the articles that used this category can be found in the PA/PM journals (N = 11)
and only 5 HRM journal articles used PA/PM theories. An example is the study by
Morris and Farrell (2007) in IJHRM that used an NPM framework to examine how HRM
has changed in various public sector organizations in local government, healthcare,
police, broadcasting and transport. Although the field of PA and PM has constructed
and provided a wide range of theories, it appears that only a limited number of articles in
our review applied these theories. The HRM and OB theories were dominant. Moreover,
our findings in Table 2 seem to indicate that PA/PM theories have not quite found their
way to HRM journals. The fourth category represents general theories and models such
as socio-technical systems theory and transaction cost theory. 13 articles in our review
 PUBLIC MANAGEMENT REVIEW 491

made use of general theories, quite evenly distributed over PA/PM and HRM journal
articles. The fifth category represents articles without any clear theory or model. We
identified 5 articles that fitted this category.
Overall, most articles applied multiple theories across the categories. Here, usual
combinations were, on the one, social-exchange theory or person-environment fit
theory (OB) with, on the other hand, the resource-based view or SHRM models such
as the HPWS framework (HRM). Although less frequent, we also detected HRM and
PA/PM theory combinations in 7 articles. Usual combinations were the NPM frame-
work, PSM theory or institutional theory (PM/PA) with SHRM models or the AMO
model (HRM), Sporadically, articles combined OB, HRM and PM/PA theories (e.g.
Gould-Williams et al. 2014; Steijn 2004).

HRM theme
The 77 articles reflect a wide range of results on HRM themes ranging from perfor-
mance appraisal to diversity management in public sector contexts. We have classified
the articles into two major HRM themes, to provide a meaningful overview of the
research findings of the 77 articles without going into too much detail per study.

Theme 1: added value of HRM

The first HRM theme we distinguish is ‘the added value’ of HRM, which represents
research in line with the ongoing HRM and performance debate that started in the
mid-90s (Guest 2017) and that focuses on HRM outcomes. We found 56 articles on
this theme (see Table 1). A further analysis of this theme reveals that most studies
focused on the relationships between ‘perceived HRM’ and HRM outcomes (N = 23).
HRM outcomes include employee attitudes, behaviour and well-being indicators and
the following list shows a high diversity of outcomes that were used in our sample: job
and work satisfaction, trust, engagement, emotional exhaustion, organizational and
affective commitment, motivation, intention to stay, stress, employee and job perfor-
mance, absence due to illness, employee turnover, discretionary effort and organiza-
tional citizenship behaviour, burnout, fairness, job quality improvement, commitment
to change and work-life balance. Of these variables, job satisfaction, commitment and
health related outcomes such as stress, burnout and exhaustion were the most fre-
quently used. Next, we could only identify 8 articles that focused on a subjective or
objective form of organizational performance (instead of individual level perfor-
mance), such as client satisfaction with the work (Kim 2010) or patient mortality
rates (West et al. 2002).
Another 8 articles in the added value theme focussed on the effects of HR mini-
bundles. A mini-bundle refers to a limited number of HR practices that are aligned to
each other and that are targeted towards a specific aim such as employee development
(Guest, Conway, and Dewe 2004). We found mini-bundles aimed at for example
diversity management (Ashikali and Groeneveld 2015), performance management
(Decramer, Smolders, and Vanderstraeten 2013) and talent management (Van Den
Brink, Fruytier, and Thunnissen 2013). Van Waeyenberg et al. (2016), for example,
show that a performance management system that is carried out consistently and that
is linked to strategic goals, reduces employees’ intentions to leave. These findings are in
line with the HRM system approach in which it is assumed that horizontal and vertical
alignment of HR practices lead to beneficial outcomes.
492 P. BOSELIE ET AL.

Finally, we analysed the (empirical) support for the added value of HRM in the 56
studies and observe that the far majority of these articles present a positive relationship
between a certain type of HRM and the type of outcome used in the study.

Theme 2: (re)shaping of HRM

The second theme that we identified is labelled ‘(re)shaping of HRM’. This theme
focusses on the impact of contextual factors on HRM. 21 articles fitted this theme and
most articles aimed at understanding the content of HRM and the ways in which HRM
is (re)shaped and implemented in governmental and public service organizations (see
Table 1). Many authors conclude that institutional pressures have a large impact.
Among the large scale of context factors that we witnessed in our data, there were
several commonalities. First, several authors found that a country’s policy agenda and
political opinions are key drivers for HRM reforms. For instance, Morris and Farrell
(2007) found that cost-pressure led to downsized and delayered public organizations in
the UK, implying more demanding jobs for public managers in which they had less job
security and opportunities for a hierarchical career. Thompson (2017) concludes that
‘HRM developments can be best understood in the context of evolving societal values’
(22) and found amongst others that political neutrality, accountability and efficiency
are important political values impacting HRM developments in US governmental
organizations. Related, public pressure or opinion was used by several authors to
explain the higher prevalence of work-life balance support opportunities (Den Dulk
and Groeneveld 2013) and employee involvement (Lonti and Verma 2003) in public
organizations when compared to the private sector. Next, rules and regulations on fair
and equal treatment of public servants were found to have a significant impact on
HRM. Boon and Verhoest (2018) for example show that regulative pressures deter-
mine recruitment practices in Belgium’s civil service. Finally, the administration
systems and traditions of a country were found to play a key role. The content of
HRM and the organization of HR decisions are significantly rooted in the administra-
tion tradition, as Meyer and Hammerschmid (2010) for instance showed in a com-
parative study of HRM in Europe. Amongst others, they found that the Anglo-Saxon
and, to a lesser degree Scandinavian, traditions with more room for contractualism,
marketization, decentralization and managerialism, explain the higher level of HR
decentralization when compared to continental Europe (with a Rechtsstaat tradition).

Conclusion and future research agenda

Our literature review shows an increased attention for HRM in public sector research
in line with Osborne (2017). In the paragraphs below, we further elaborate on this
finding that is related to our central question to review and summarize research on
HRM in public sector contexts. In general, in this review we observe a quantification
and psychologization of research on HRM in the public sector domain. This is reflected
in the predominance of quantitative research, especially in PA/PM journals, and the
heavy focus on individual-level employee attitudes and behaviours such as satisfaction.
The HRM literature has recently been criticized for a further psychologization of the
field (Godard 2014), and our findings indicate that this is not a private-sector trend,
but that it also applies to HRM research in the public sector. Most of the studies we
analysed stem from Western country data (USA, Australia and Europe), although there
is a wider range of studies from other continents including Africa and Asia. The most
 PUBLIC MANAGEMENT REVIEW 493

popular sectors were healthcare, government (local and central) and education. The
popularity of research in the healthcare sector can be explained by the multiple
organizational and employee challenges that healthcare organizations worldwide
face. These challenges are related to for example issues of an ageing patient and
workforce population, governmental cuts, organizational reforms and reorganizations.
Next, our thematical analysis of the 77 articles indicates the popularity of the ‘added
value of HRM’ theme, directly related to the ongoing HRM and performance debate
(Guest 2017). The popularity of this theme can be explained by the strong performance
orientation in the public sector in the last two decades (Osborne 2017). In combination
with the trend of a further psychologization of the field, it is not surprising that we
found most studies to examine the impact of HRM on individual-level performance
indicators. These indicators are often derived from HRM research in private organiza-
tions and cover a wide array of different variables, meaning that a rich, yet fragmented
picture on the individual-level outcomes of HRM in public organizations is provided.
Only a small group of papers included organizational performance indicators, mean-
ing that definitive conclusions on how HRM impacts public sector performance cannot
be drawn.
Although less prevalent than the first theme, the research findings in the second
theme on (re)shaping HRM (referring to organizational reforms that are often related
to governmental cuts, paradigm shifts in strategic decision making and austerity)
indicate that institutional pressures and constraints that are characteristic of the public
sector, directly impact HRM. Notably, cost-pressures, public opinion and rules/reg-
ulations are found to impact the form, content and impact of HRM in public organiza-
tions. The prevalence of the second theme in our review can be explained partly
because of organizational challenges that have to do with work (re)design in a complex
and dynamic environment and partly because of inevitable reorganizations in many
public sector organizations because of governmental cuts and NPM initiatives. Indeed,
several studies in our review show that a country’s political agenda has a significant
impact on HRM in public organizations. Gooderham, Mayrhofer, and Brewster (2018),
for example, emphasize the differences between countries in comparative HRM
research on the basis of significant institutional differences between countries using
Cranet data in the decade 2007–2017. The International HRM or comparative HRM
research presented by Gooderham, Mayrhofer, and Brewster (2018) also provides
lessons on a country’s political agenda and its impact on the shaping of HRM in public
sector organizations.
A second question of our review was to study the degree of cross-fertilization
between the disciplines of HRM and PA/PM. We conclude that true cross-pollination
has only marginally been established. We found that HRM and OB theories inform the
field of PA/PM, but the other way around was far less prevalent: PA/PM theories were
mainly applied in the PA/PM journals and only marginally in HRM journals. We did
find a small group of studies that used both HRM/OB and PA/PM theories indicating
that cross-fertilization is not completely lacking.

Future research agenda

What are the lessons that can be learned from this review? The first lesson is that the
added value of HRM for public sector performance is largely unknown and needs to be
explored empirically. The added value of HRM is now a claim that is mainly based on
494 P. BOSELIE ET AL.

findings from private sector research. Moreover, when the subject is studied in the public
setting, the focus is mostly on individual worker performance using cross-sectional data.
Researchers can learn from private sector research that use advanced research designs.
Van der Voorde, Paauwe, and Van Veldhoven (2010), for example, present an empirical
study on HRM and performance in financial services using longitudinal data from
individual employees and 171 branches of the company. Their analysis is multi-level
using subjective employee survey and objective branch performance data. Another
example of is the study by Tregaskis et al. (2013), who present longitudinal data (both
subjective and objective) based on a UK based heavy engineering plant of a multi-
national. The second lesson is related to the further possibilities of cross-fertilization
between HRM, PM and PA research. PM and PA research can learn from the rigour in
HRM and performance research of more than two decades of private sector research (see
Guest 2017). HRM research in its turn can learn from PA and PM research on contextual
mechanisms and contextualized theories given the complexity of the internal and
external contexts of public sector organizations. Such a cross-pollination means that
the general HRM theories and methods will be refined and contextualized for the public
sector, also leading to an evidence-based insight in the added value of HRM for public
sector performance. Based on the most frequently studied PA/PM theories in our review,
we provide two examples. First, PSM theory could be integrated in the (general) AMO
model by viewing the M for motivation not only as general intrinsic motivation but also
as public service specific motivation that could be stimulated by different types of HR
practices and for instance not performance-related pay (Vandenabeele 2007; Vermeeren
2017). This way, oversimplification and imitation of best practices can be avoided in
theory and practice. Second, institutional theory can be used to better understand the
composition of HR systems and their impact on employees’ attitudes and behaviours. For
instance, coercive mechanisms are found to impact HR practices’ prevalence in the
public sector (Den Dulk and Groeneveld 2013; Lonti and Verma 2003). Moreover,
coercive mechanisms such as rules and regulations could also be perceived as red tape
by employees and negatively impact their motivation and well-being.
On the basis of our review, future research on HRM in the public sector domain
could take into account the following methodological implications. First, a further
theorization based on sector specificity requires the inclusion of sector-specific char-
acteristics such as professionals, in particular medical specialists in hospitals, judges in
courts, teachers in schools, police officers, fire fighters and civil servants. From a
professional perspective this also implies specific characteristics and challenges such
as hybrid managers in health care organizations, who are basically medical specialists
with a management responsibility (Sartirana, Currie, and Noordegraaf 2018). The
combination of tasks and responsibilities (professional norms and management
tasks) can be unique with significant theoretical and methodological implications for
HRM research in public sector areas. Professionals as part of context has not been a
subject that we encountered extensively in our literature study.
Second, it is important to apply longitudinal instead of cross-sectional research
designs and start using methods such as experiments to test for causal effects over time
(see for example Molineux 2013) and to provide a solid empirical basis for claims on
the added value of HRM for public sector performance. In addition, it is relevant to
apply mixed methods and making use of multi-actor data (not just input from
employees, but top management and line managers as well) to acknowledge the
multidimensionality of public sector performance taking a multi-actor perspective
 PUBLIC MANAGEMENT REVIEW 495

(cf. Andersen, Boesen, and Pedersen 2016) and to get a better understanding of the
whole value chain from intended, actual to perceived HRM practices in line with the
HR process model by Wright and Nishii (2013). The HRM and performance study by
Van der Voorde, Paauwe, and Van Veldhoven (2010) is a good example of private
sector research using advanced methods and techniques that have not been picked up
in public sector research probably partly because of lacking access to data and partly
because of challenges in defining public sector performance in terms of objective data
(see also Knies et al. 2018; Vermeeren, Kuipers, and Steijn 2014).
Third, in addition to the comments raised above it is relevant to define and measure
organizational outcomes and performance in contrast to the dominance of HRM
outcomes (for example job satisfaction and employee commitment) used in the
analyses, because good performance is more than employee perceptions and employee
well-being. In line with the multidimensional performance construct – employee well-
being, societal well-being and organizational effectiveness – we make a plea for
widening performance in future research (Beer, Boselie, and Brewster 2015). This
also implies a further contextualizing of empirical research using multi-stakeholder
approaches (Beer, Boselie, and Brewster 2015) and PA/PM theories that are known for
their contextuality. In our opinion contextualizing (and widening) performance in the
public sector domains includes two important notions. First, the acknowledgement
that there are very specific outcomes such as patient safety and quality in hospitals and
productivity in schools. Mortality rates can be relevant in a health care context while
totally irrelevant in another public sector context. Second, some outcomes are more
important than others given sector specific challenges that can be temporarily.
Employee retention, for example, appears to be highly relevant in health care organi-
zations given challenges such as labour market shortages, a poor reputation of health
work and additional urban challenges that are the direct result of extremely high
housing prices (for example in the London, Paris and Amsterdam regions). The
combination of situational factors (shortages, reputation and urban factors) can lead
to a necessary prioritizing of certain performance indicators.
Fourth, researchers could include a broader range of public organizations beyond
the popular subsectors healthcare, government and education. Specifically, research is
needed within the police, military services, social services, the energy sector and the
transport sector given the lack of empirical research in these areas that are also subject
to governmental cuts, major reforms and organizational change. International govern-
mental organizations (IGOs) and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are also
left out of mainstream HRM research. Except for Brewster and Cerdin (2018) there is
little or no HRM research on these types of organizations.
Fifth, future research could pay explicit attention for effective implementation and
line management enactment of HRM policies and practices with an important role
for leadership (Cho and Lee 2012) and management (Knies and Leisink 2018). The
role of line managers in the shaping of HRM in public sector organizations is
underdeveloped in prior research (Bauwens, Audenaert, and Decramer 2018;
Krause and Van Thiel 2019), although this has not been a specific subject of the
analysis in our review instead it is mainly based on additional insights from the
references mentioned here. In addition, the role and position of HRM professionals
in public sector contexts as innovators, designers, facilitators and shapers of HRM in
public sector areas is both interesting and relevant. Larsen and Brewster (2003) were
among the first to acknowledge the importance of line managers in the shaping of
496 P. BOSELIE ET AL.

HRM. This is now known as devolution theory approach. Their ideas were picked up
by Purcell and Hutchinson (2007) and Wright and Nishii (2008 Cornell paper)
focused on private sector HRM and performance research. The devolution approach
and the role of line managers in the shaping of HRM is echoed in public sector
research a couple of years later, for example by Knies and Leisink (2018). Similar to
the observation that private sector HRM research has applied more advanced
techniques, we observe that line management enactment attention was picked up
earlier in private sector HRM research than in public sector HRM studies. However,
we need to be careful in using insights from HRM research in private sectors and
avoid mere imitation but instead look for meaningful applications that considers the
institutional context. Recent work by Vermeeren, Kuipers, and Steijn (2014) could
help to advance this proposed direction.
Stop right there, before we go any further. The observation of a further quantifica-
tion and psychologization of research on HRM in public sector contexts implies more
‘rigor’ at the expense of ‘relevance’. Relevance refers to the meaning and possible
implications of certain findings to organizations in practice. More rigour at the
expense of relevance implies a risk of overestimating the extent to which individual
public sector workers can be steered towards performance. In an ideal situation,
research on HRM in public sector organizations reflects both rigour (theory and
methods) and relevance (context and impact).

Limitations
This study has several limitations. First, the data analysis is limited to specific sources
excluding books, dissertations, conference papers and research reports. The focus on
a selection of peer-reviewed journals does, however, provide some assurance regard-
ing the quality of the research. Second, we did not provide an in-depth analysis of
every individual empirical journal article beyond the results of the added value
articles. The selected articles in this study form a rich source for further analysis
on the meaning and impact of HRM in public sector domains. Third, research on
HRM departments, HR roles and HR competences was not included. The role and
position of HRM professionals in public sector organizations are an interesting and
relevant topic for further research. Finally, some of the findings reflect the attention
paid to it in academic research without knowing if it is also popular or relevant in
practice.

Concluding remarks
Human resource management (HRM) is gaining popularity in public management
research. The overview in this paper provides some yardsticks and suggestions for new
research areas and guidelines for setting up new research. The contribution of this
study is threefold. First, the overview highlights what we already know about HRM in
public sector domains based on empirical journal articles. Second, the study reveals
cross-fertilization in some areas and the lack of cross-fertilization in other areas.
Finally, the overview provides a future research agenda that could lead to more rigour
in theories, research designs, methods and analyses.
 PUBLIC MANAGEMENT REVIEW 497

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Paul Boselie (PhD) is a Professor of Public Administration and Organization Science at the Utrecht
University School of Governance (USG, Utrecht University). His research focuses on strategic HRM
and public service performance, employer engagement of vulnerable workers and effective manage-
ment implementation in public sector organizations. He is the Head of Department of USG and
author of the popular textbook strategic HRM – a balanced approach (2010 and 2014). Paul has
published more than hundred journal articles, books and book chapters in the area of HRM,
performance management, talent management, private equity and employer engagement. He is a
former editor of Personnel Review and the International Journal of HRM.
Monique Veld (PhD) is an Assistant Professor in Human Resources Studies at the Utrecht University
School of Governance (USG, Utrecht University). Her research is concerned with strategic human
resource management (in health care), strategic climate, employee well-being and employability.
Jasmijn van Harten (PhD) is an Assistant Professor in Human Resource Management at the Utrecht
University School of Governance (USG, Utrecht University). She is also the Chairperson of the Faculty
Council of the Faculty of Law, Economics and Governance.
In her research she examines the sustainable employability of employees. Other research interests
include: leadership in organizations, the relationships between employee well-being and productivity,
and contributions of HRM to individual and organizational performance.

References
Andersen, L. B., A. Boesen, and L. Pedersen. 2016. “Performance in Public Organizations: Clarifying
the Conceptual Space.” Public Administration Review 76 (6): 852–862. doi:10.1111/puar.2016.76.
issue-6.
Ashikali, T., and S. Groeneveld. 2015. “Diversity Management in Public Organizations and Its Effect
on Employees’ Affective Commitment: The Role of Transformational Leadership and the
Inclusiveness of the Organizational Culture.” Review of Public Personnel Administration 35 (2):
146–168. doi:10.1177/0734371X13511088.
Bauwens, R., M. Audenaert, and A. Decramer. 2018. “Fostering Societal Impact and Job Satisfaction:
The Role of Performance Management and Leader–Member Exchange.” Public Management
Review 21 (10): 1486-1515. doi:10.1080/14719037.2018.1561928.
Beer, M., P. Boselie, and C. Brewster. 2015. “Back to the Future: Implications for the Field of HRM of
the Multistakeholder Perspective Proposed 30 Years Ago.” Human Resource Management 54 (3):
427–438. doi:10.1002/hrm.2015.54.issue-3.
Boon, J., and K. Verhoest. 2018. “By Design or by Drift: How, Where, and Why HRM Activities are
Organized in the Public Sector.” Review of Public Personnel Administration 38 (1): 110–134.
doi:10.1177/0734371X15626775.
Boselie, P. 2014. Strategic Human Resource Management. A Balanced Approach. 2nd ed. New York:
McGraw Hill.
Boselie, P., G. Dietz, and C. Boon. 2005. “Commonalities and Contradictions in HRM and
Performance Research.” Human Resource Management Journal 15 (3): 67–94. doi:10.1111/
hrmj.2005.15.issue-3.
Boxall, P., and J. Purcell. 2016. Strategy and Human Resource Management. 4th ed. Palgrave
Macmillan.
Bozeman, B. 1987. All Organizations are Public: Bridging Public and Private Organizational Theories.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Brewster, C., and J. L. Cerdin, eds. 2018. HRM in Mission Driven Organizations. Cham: Palgrave
MacMillan.
Brown, K. 2004. “Human Resource Management in the Public Sector.” Public Management
Review 6 (3): 303–309. doi:10.1080/1471903042000256501.
498 P. BOSELIE ET AL.

Butterfield, R., C. Edwards, and J. Woodall. 2004. “The New Public Management and the UK Police
Service.” Public Management Review 6 (3): 395–415. doi:10.1080/1471903042000256556.
Cho, Y. J., and J. W. Lee. 2012. “Performance Management and Trust in Supervisors.” Review of Public
Personnel Administration 32 (3): 236–259. doi:10.1177/0734371X11421496.
Decramer, A., C. Smolders, and A. Vanderstraeten. 2013. “Employee Performance Management
Culture and System Features in Higher Education: Relationship with Employee Performance
Management Satisfaction.” The International Journal of Human Resource Management 24 (2):
352–371.
Delery, J. E., and D. H. Doty. 1996. “Modes of Theorizing in Strategic Human Resource Management:
Tests of Universalistic, Contingency, and Configurational Performance Predictions.” Academy of
Management Journal 39: 802–835.
Den Dulk, L., and S. Groeneveld. 2013. “Work–Life Balance Support in the Public Sector in Europe.”
Review of Public Personnel Administration 33 (4): 384–405. doi:10.1177/0734371X12449024.
Godard, J. 2014. “The Psychologisation of Employment Relations?” Human Resource Management
Journal 24 (1): 1–18. doi:10.1111/hrmj.2014.24.issue-1.
Gooderham, P. N., W. Mayrhofer, and C. Brewster. 2018. “A Framework for Comparative
Institutional Research on HRM.” The International Journal of Human Resource Management 30
(1): 5–30. doi:10.1080/09585192.2018.1521462.
Gould-Williams, J. S. 2004. “The Effects of ‘high Commitment’ HRM Practices on Employee Attitude:
The Views of Public Sector Workers.” Public Administration 82 (1): 63–81.
Gould-Williams, J. S., P. Bottomley, T. Redman, E. Snape, D. J. Bishop, T. Limpanitgul, and A. M. S.
Mostafa. 2014. “Civic Duty and Employee Outcomes: Do High Commitment Human Resource
Practices and Work Overload Matter?” Public Administration 92 (4): 937–953.
Grimmelikhuijsen, S., S. Jilke, A. L. Olsen, and L. Tummers. 2017. “Behavioral Public Administration:
Combining Insights from Public Administration and Psychology.” Public Administration Review
77 (1): 45–56.
Guest, D. E. 2017. “Human Resource Management and Employee Well-being: Towards a New
Analytic Framework.” Human Resource Management Journal 27 (1): 22–38.
Guest, D. E., N. Conway, and P. Dewe. 2004. “Using Sequential Tree Analysis to Search for ‘bundles’ of
HR Practices.” Human Resource Management Journal 14 (1): 79–96.
Hondeghem, A., and F. Vandermeulen. 2000. “Competency Management in the Flemish and
Dutchcivil Service.” International Journal of Public Sector Management 13: 342–353.
Huselid, M. A. 1995. “The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on Turnover,
Productivity, and Corporate Financial Performance.” Academy of Management Journal 38 (3):
635–672.
Kilroy, S., P. C. Flood, J. Bosak, and D. Chênevert. 2017. “Perceptions of High-involvement Work
Practices, Person-organization Fit, and Burnout: A Time-lagged Study of Health Care Employees.”
Human Resource Management 56 (5): 821–835.
Kim, J. 2010. “Strategic Human Resource Practices: Introducing Alternatives for Organizational
Performance Improvement in the Public Sector.” Public Administration Review 70 (1): 38–49.
Kjeldsen, A., and C. Jacobsen. 2013. “Public Service Motivation and Employment Sector: Attraction or
Socialization?” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 23: 899–926.
Knies, E., P. Boselie, J. Gould-Williams, and W. Vandenabeele. 2018. “Special Issue of
International Journal of Human Resource Management: Strategic Human Resource
Management and Public Sector Performance.” The International Journal of Human Resource
Management 26: 421–424.
Knies, E., and P. Leisink. 2018. “People Management in the Public Sector.” In HRM in Mission Driven
Organizations, edited by C. Brewster and J. L. Cerdin, 15–46. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kooij, D. T. A. M., P. G. W. Jansen, J. S. E. Dikkers, and A. H. De Lange. 2014. “Managing Aging
Workers: A Mixed Methods Study on Bundles of HR Practices for Aging Workers.” The
International Journal of Human Resource Management 25 (15): 2192–2212.
Krause, T., and S. Van Thiel. 2019. “Perceived Managerial Autonomy in Municipally Owned
Corporations: Disentangling the Impact of Output Control, Process Control, and Policy-profession
Conflict.” Public Management Review 21 (2): 187–211.
Larsen, H. H., and C. Brewster. 2003. “Line Management Responsibility for HRM: What Is Happening
in Europe.” Employee Relations 25 (3): 228–244.
 PUBLIC MANAGEMENT REVIEW 499

Lonti, Z., and A. Verma. 2003. “The Determinants of Flexibility and Innovation in the Government
Workplace: Recent Evidence from Canada.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
13 (3): 283–309.
Luu, T. T. 2018. “Service-oriented High-performance Work Systems and Service-oriented Behaviours
in Public Organizations: The Mediating Role of Work Engagement.” Public Management Review 21
(6): 789–816. doi:10.1080/14719037.2018.1526314.
Mauro, S. G., L. Cinquini, and G. Grossi. 2017. “Insights into Performance-based Budgeting in the
Public Sector: A Literature Review and a Research Agenda.” Public Management Review 19 (7):
911–931.
Melton, E. K., and K. J. Meier. 2016. “For the Want of a Nail: The Interaction of Managerial Capacity
and Human Resource Management on Organizational Performance.” Public Administration
Review 77 (1): 118–130.
Meyer, R. E., and G. Hammerschmid. 2010. “The Degree of Decentralization and Individual Decision
Making in Central Government Human Resource Management: A European Comparative
Perspective.” Public Administration 88 (2): 455–478.
Molineux, J. 2013. “Enabling Organizational Cultural Change Using Systemic Strategic Human
Resource Management – A Longitudinal Case Study.” The International Journal of Human
Resource Management 24 (8): 1588–1612.
Morris, J., and C. Farrell. 2007. “The ‘post-bureaucratic’ Public Sector Organization. New
Organizational Forms and HRM in Ten UK Public Sector Organizations.” The International
Journal of Human Resource Management 18 (9): 1575–1588.
Mostafa, A. M. S. 2016. “High-performance HR Practices, Work Stress and Quit Intentions in the
Public Health Sector: Does Person–Organization Fit Matter?” Public Management Review 18 (8):
1218–1237.
Nutley, S. 2000. “Beyond Systems: HRM Audits in the Public Sector.” Human Resource Management
Journal 10 (2): 21–33.
Osborne, S. P. 2017. “Public Management Research over the Decades: What are We Writing About?”
Public Management Review 19 (2): 109–113.
Paauwe, J. 2004. HRM and Performance: Achieving Long-term Viability. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Paauwe, J., D. E. Guest, and P. M. Wright, Eds. 2013. HRM & Performance: Achievements &
Challenges. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Perry, J. L., T. A. Engbers, and S. Y. Jun. 2009. “Back to the Future? Performance-Related Pay,
Empirical Research, and the Perils of Persistence.” Public Administration Review 69 (1): 39–51.
Pfeffer, J. 1994. Competitive Advantage through People: Unleashing the Power of the Work Force.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Pichault, F. 2007. “HRM-based Reforms in Public Organisations: Problems and Perspectives.” Human
Resource Management Journal 17 (3): 265–282.
Purcell, J., and S. Hutchinson. 2007. “Front-line Managers as Agents in the HRM-performance Causal
Chain: Theory, Analysis and Evidence.” Human Resource Management Journal 17 (1): 3–20.
Rainey, H. G. 2009. Understanding and Managing Public Organizations. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and
Sons.
Redman, T., E. Snape, D. Thompson, and F. K. Yan. 2000. “Performance Appraisal in an NHS
Hospital.” Human Resource Management Journal 10 (1): 48–62.
Sartirana, M., G. Currie, and M. Noordegraaf. 2018. “Interactive Identity Work of Professionals in
Management: A Hospital Case Study.” Public Management Review 21 (8): 1191–1212. doi:10.1080/
14719037.2018.1549269.
Srinivasan, V., and R. Chandwani. 2014. “HRM Innovations in Rapid Growth Contexts: The
Healthcare Sector in India.” The International Journal of Human Resource Management 25 (10):
1505–1525.
Steijn, B. 2004. “Human Resource Management and Job Satisfaction in the Dutch Public Sector.”
Review of Public Personnel Administration 24 (4): 291–303.
Teo, S. 2000. “Evidence of Strategic HRM Linkages in Eleven Australian Corporatized Public Sector
Organizations.” Public Personnel Management 29 (4): 557–574.
Thompson, J. R. 2017. “Value Shifts in Public Sector Human Resource Management: A Congressional
Perspective.” Review of Public Personnel Administration 37 (4): 375–404.
500 P. BOSELIE ET AL.

Tregaskis, O., K. Daniels, L. Glover, P. Butler, and M. Meyer. 2013. “High Performance Work
Practices and Firm Performance: A Longitudinal Case Study.” British Journal of Management
24 (2): 225–244.
Van Den Brink, M., B. Fruytier, and M. Thunnissen. 2013. “Talent Management in Academia:
Performance Systems and HRM Policies.” Human Resource Management Journal 23 (2): 180–195.
Van der Voorde, K., J. Paauwe, and M. Van Veldhoven. 2010. “Predicting Unit Performance Using
Employee Surveys: Monitoring HRM-related Changes.” Human Resource Management Journal 20:
44–63.
Van Waeyenberg, T., A. Decramer, S. Desmidt, and M. Audenaert. 2016. “The Relationship between
Employee Performance Management and Civil Servants’ Turnover Intentions: A Test of the
Mediating Roles of System Satisfaction and Affective Commitment.” Public Management Review
19 (6): 747–764.
Vandenabeele, W. 2007. “Toward a Public Administration Theory of Public Service Motivation: An
Institutional Approach.” Public Management Review 9 (4): 545–556.
Vermeeren, B. 2017. “Influencing Public Sector Performance: Studying the Impact of Ability-,
Motivation-and Opportunity-enhancing Human Resources Practices on Various Performance
Outcomes in the Public Sector.” International Review of Administrative Sciences 83: 717–737.
Vermeeren, B., B. Kuipers, and B. Steijn. 2014. “Does Leadership Style Make a Difference? Linking
HRM, Job Satisfaction, and Organizational Performance.” Review of Public Personnel
Administration 34: 174–195.
West, M. A., C. Borrill, J. Dawson, J. Scully, M. Carter, S. Anelay, . . . J. Waring. 2002. “The Link
between the Management of Employees and Patient Mortality in Acute Hospitals.” The
International Journal of Human Resource Management 13 (8): 1299–1310.
Wright, P. M., and W. R. Boswell. 2002. “Desegregating HRM: A Review and Synthesis of Micro and
Macro Human Resource Management Research.” Journal of Management 28 (3): 247–276.
Wright, P. M., and L. H. Nishii 2008. “Strategic HRM and Organizational Behavior: Integrating
Multiple Levels of Analysis.” CAHRS Working Paper Series. Cornell University, ILR School.
Wright, P. M., and L. H. Nishii. 2013. “Strategic HRM and Organizational Behavior: Integrating
Multiple Levels of Analysis.” In HRM and Performance: Achievements and Challenges, edited by J.
Paauwe, D. E. Guest, and P. M. Wright. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.