Tutor: Jo McBride

1. Critically Review An Academic Journal ArticleA Sample Essay in the Human Resource Management Module Tutor: Jo McBride

2. Certain assignments require you to write a critical review of a journal article. To help you with this, a tutor has written a sample review. The word count limit applied was 1500. First read each paragraph of the review shown on the following slides. Then click on each slide again to uncover an explanatory commentary on that section of the review. This review is for guidance only in response to student questions about how to write a critical review. You should not normally include headings, which have been used here only to aid navigation of the review.

3. Journal article used in this sample critical review….. Behrends, T. (2007). Recruitment practices in small and medium enterprises. An empirical study among knowledge-intensive professional service firms. Management Revue, 18(1):55-74.

4. Paragraph 1 - Introduction In this paper it will be argued that Behrends’ (2007) study of recruitment practices in small and medium sized professional service firms is an interesting but problematic piece of research. The argument will be developed through a critical review of Behrends’ paper, discussing in turn its conceptual bases, research methods, main findings, and practical implications. It then provides a brief summary of how this review is structured. This helps guide the reader in what to expect. The first sentence of this introduction paragraph points out the chosen article’s research focus and summarises the reviewer’s position.

5. Paragraph 2 – Brief Summary and Synopsis Behrends’ paper reports a study of 342 companies’ recruitment practices. In particular the research is concerned with small and medium-sized knowledge-intensive professional service firms (SMKIPSFs) in Germany. Behrends justifies the paper’s focus, of how SMKIPSFs manage recruitment, on the grounds that professional service firms are highly dependent on their employees for the quality of services sold by the company. The second paragraph starts with a brief description of Behrends’ research design. It then summarises how Behrends claims the importance of this research. This could be interpreted as a potential weakness in the article’s line of argument.

6. Paragraph 3 The study utilised a survey research strategy to understand the recruitment practices use in the focal firms. Behrends’ research findings suggest recruitment and selection practices in SMKIPSFs, while distinct from the practices of larger firms, are mostly suitable for the smaller firms in question. This finding resonates with a core theme running through Behrends’ conceptualization of recruitment in SMKIPSFs, and indeed smaller firms more generally, that these firms are distinct from larger organizations. The author goes further into the methodology used by Behrends. (step 1) Then points out the research findings. (step 2) This paragraph ends with Behrends’ main argument. (step 3) This step-by-step approach shows the reviewer’s understanding of the key issues in Behrend’s paper.

7. Paragraph 4 – Literature and Concepts Behrends is critical of the established literature on how smaller businesses conduct recruitment and selection. A particular problem in the literature, identified by Behrends, is a tendency to view smaller firms as lacking the various trappings of HRM. This “management deficit” (2007: 57) perspective is based on an implicit comparison with a model of people management derived from research into large organizations. This paragraph goes back to the literature review in the field cited by Behrends himself in the research. This is where the theoretical foundation of his claims derives from.

8. Paragraph 5 In criticising the “management deficit” (2007: 57) perspective, Behrends does not offer many examples of studies taking such a position . Behrends does cite Holliday (1995) along with Curran and Blackburn (2001) but it is unclear whether he considers these authors to hold such a perspective or to share his criticisms of it. Certainly from reading Holliday’s (1995) study of working-life in smaller firms, and Curran’s (2006) recent discussion of smaller firms’ distinctiveness (also see Torres and Julien, 2005), it seems unlikely that the “management deficit” perspective is reflected in their work. However, this presents an opportunity for the reviewer to start to criticise a limitation of Behrends’ theoretical research ….. … and contrast this with the reviewer’s own research into other literature on the same topic (from ‘outside’ the article).

9. Paragraph 6 The lack of supporting evidence offered for his assertion that “Many publications tend to construe the observable absence of (formal) HRM in small and medium-size enterprises as a severe “management deficit”.” (2007:57) might raise questions as to how Behrends’ view is reflected in the literature. Nevertheless, the deficit perspective serves to throw the alternative “equivalence model” (2007: 57) into sharper relief. The reviewer summarises his criticism, but also acknowledges a positive aspect of the article’s research claims. This shows a balanced perspective in the critical review – remember to look for strengths as well as any limitations.

10. Paragraph 7 Behrends’ alternative to the deficit view of management of smaller firms is that their approaches to people management should be viewed on their own terms. In other words, the context of the organization should be taken into account when considering whether practices are appropriate This shows the reviewer’s understanding of how Behrends’ theoretical position has shaped the research focus .

11. Paragraph 8 Under the equivalence perspective organizations are accepted to require certain basic functions, like recruitment, but they are expected to differ in how they fulfil such functional requirements. Although some have criticised this functional view of HRM in smaller firms (for example see Taylor, 2005) an awareness that smaller firms should be judged on their own terms informs much of the recent literature on HRM in small and medium organizations (Rainnie, 1989; Abbot, 1993; Marchington et al, 2003). The reviewer briefly describes the theory used in the article. And then shows an awareness (from wider reading) of the literature sources that support or argue against Behrends’ view.

12. Paragraph 9 Broadening his discussion beyond the primary concepts of deficit and equivalence Behrends highlights the heterogeneity of organizations within an “SME” definition, for example in terms of employee numbers. While specifically on the topic of recruitment, Behrends determines that in smaller firms recruitment must be a “...social process...” (2007:62) dependent on social networks and interpersonal relations. The reviewer now goes back to describing how Behrends builds his argument in the article, continuing this into the next paragraph.

13. Paragraph 10 Behrends’ discussion of the literature and identification of a need to better understand recruitment in SMKIPSFs leads him to formulate six hypotheses. The hypotheses concern the nature of recruitment in SMKIPSFs and the role played by the social structure of the organization.

14. Paragraph 11 – Research Methods To investigate these hypotheses Behrends conducted a survey via telephone and online of “...German SMEs in selected knowledge-intensive sectors.” (2007: 62). The questions were mainly ‘closed’ in nature and built around organizations’ HRM activities, the social nature of the business, and considerations of the practices’ effectiveness. The questionnaires were answered by “...a competent contact person...” (2007: 62). The review now describes the research methodology in detail.

15. Paragraph 12 The 342 usable responses, a response rate of around 19%, represent an impressive achievement for a survey approach involving SMEs (compare with Duberley and Walley, 1995; Dennis, 2003).However a number of concerns with Behrends’ research approach should be addressed. The reviewer then reports a strength of this methodological approach with reference to external sources he has consulted. But also then flags up potential weaknesses …

16. Paragraph 13 The first issue with the research strategy concerns the study’s focus. Although Behrends’ explicitly identifies the concern of the study as relating to SME recruitment practices (see for example the article title and the discussion on page 56), elsewhere he describes the study’s focus as being on policies (see for example page 62). The distinction between policies and practices is important in itself because policies are not always reflected by practices (Wright and Boswell, 2002). It matters from a methodological perspective because strategies capable of accounting for policies may not be effective at capturing practices. This paragraph analyses a first weakness in depth, firstly from within Behrends’ own argument, and then with support from an external source.

17. Paragraph 14 Bacon et al (1996) demonstrate through their multi-method study of HRM in SMEs that survey responses are not necessarily matched by the practices in use. This means that if Behrends is serious about wishing to investigate recruitment practices in SMEs, his research approach may be inappropriate. Again with the use of wider reading into research design, the reviewer points out a potential weakness in Behrends’ choice of research methods. He then continues that evidenced critique into the following paragraph …

18. Paragraph 15 Secondly, the study’s reliance on single respondents provides no means of verifying the information provided by the respondent. This debate has already been played out in the HRM literature (Paauwe and Boselie, 2005) and while single respondent surveys are still present in research of HRM in SMEs (see for example Sels et al, 2006) it remains problematic.

19. Paragraph 16 A third, and for current purposes final, challenge to Behrends’ research approach concerns his use of closed questions. In setting out his initial position in relation to the literature, Behrends is at pains to stress how research must be sensitive to the distinctive nature of SMEs when compared to larger organizations. It is this belief in the distinctiveness of smaller firms that informs Behrends’ critique of the deficit model and promotion of an equivalence perspective. There is a tension, however, in arguing for research that takes the context of smaller firms seriously but studying these businesses via closed questions. This paragraph and the next delivers the most critical analysis of Behrend’s approach by pinpointing how his research methods may not fulfil the stated research objectives. This is an incisive argument as it highlights the reviewer’s awareness of how research methodology must be directed by the original, stated aims of that research.

20. Paragraph 17 Closed questions gather ‘yes / no’ answers against a pre-defined set of policies, practices, or other characteristics. Such questions appear well-suited to exploring how far a respondent firm’s policies or practices conform to Behrends’ understanding of HRM in SMEs, however less good at detecting emergent practices not yet covered in the literature. Since HRM in SMKIPSFs is generally under-researched (Scase, 1995) approaches to HRM might exist in these firms and yet not be represented in extant research. If practices exist have but have yet to be reported in the literature they are unlikely to be covered on Behrends’ list of closed questions. Behrends’ research strategy therefore appears ill-equipped to meet his own standard regarding the importance of context sensitivity when exploring HRM activities in SMEs. If fact Behrends’ list is designed to confirm the existence of practices found elsewhere rather than explore how SMKIPSFs’ context might inform the practices they adopt. (You may refer to the comments in the previous slide.)

21. Paragraph 18 – Discussion of Results The problematic nature of Behrends’ methodological approach makes it hard to discuss his reported findings with confidence. Nevertheless, Behrends’ initial findings suggest that consistent with Kotey and Slade (2005) larger firms have greater degrees of HRM formalization and infrastructure than smaller firms. This means that firms of different sizes may vary in their recruitment and selection procedures’ formality. Behrends also emphasises that in smaller firms, the recruitment activities should be seen as a “...social process...” (2007: 72) involving existing employees, which recalls the earlier findings of Marchington et al (2003). The reviewer restates his critical position on the reliability of Behrends’ findings, but does balance this with affirmations of the relative value of the article findings by relating that again to his wider reading.

22. Paragraph 19 Behrends’ findings in relation to recruitment in SMKIPSFs seem to confirm the results reported in SMEs operating in different contexts. To this extent, and remaining cautious of the methodological limitations already discussed, Behrends’ study suggests that SMKIPSFs may operate in ways similar to other SMEs. This finding may be a product of the research design, however if this idea can be generalised there may be scope for further research to test for whether general research into HRM in SMEs can account for the activities of SMKIPSFs. [Practical Implication] Researchers engaging in such studies would be well-advised, however, to address the limitations of Behrends’ study and this seems to be the main practical implication stemming from his reported study. The reviewer continues to cautiously suggest value to the article’s findings in terms of potential for future research. But he also re-emphasises the limitations of the article’s basis for its findings.

23. Paragraph 20 – Overall Conclusion In conclusion, Behrends has attempted to explore recruitment activities in a sub-set of German SMEs. The importance of employees, and recruitment in particular, to these firms along with the general absence of knowledge-intensive firms from discussion of HRM in SMEs (Scase, 1995) suggest that this was a worthy endeavour. Unfortunately fundamental difficulties with Behrends’ conceptualisation and execution of his research mean that the reported results must be treated with extreme caution. The reviewer concludes with a summary of the article’s research focus and his endorsement of those aims. He finishes with a reminder of the weaknesses that he believes to be evident in the research approach adopted by Behrends.

24. Overall Comments….. So this reviewer has adopted quite a critical, i.e. negative, stance. Critical reviews do not necessarily have to take such a strong counter-position. Your own aim in a critical review should be to evaluate both strengths and limitations, with as many externally sourced references as possible, to present a justified analysis of the article’s value in the relevant field of research.