COMMENT ON “MEASUREMENT ERROR IN RESEARCH ON HUMAN RESOURCES AND FIRM PERFORMANCE: HOW MUCH ERROR IS THERE AND HOW DOES IT INFLUENCE EFFECTSIZE ESTIMATES?” by GERHART, WRIGHT, MC MAHAN, AND SNELL

By Mark A. Huselid, B. Becker. 2000

282 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Information Systems and Management, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a45defd1c1be919bd9fdc465b84b77078656ea96

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Information Systems and Management

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

Citations in the corpus

Human Resource Flexibility as a Mediating Variable Between High Performance Work Systems and Performance (2008, background): “…that a better understanding of how HPWS enhance organizational effectiveness can be achieved by assuming that before it is evidenced in final results, HPWS influence other intermediate organizational outcomes, mostly related to employee responses and performance at work (Huselid & Becker, 2000).”
Specific Onboarding Practices for the Socialization of New Employees (2015, background): “Had we sought corroboration from a second, potentially less informed source, we would be able to assess inter-rater reliability, but it is less clear that the combined information would be more accurate (Huselid & Becker, 2000).”
Strategic human resource management: The evolution of the field (2009, background): “Gerhart, Wright, and McMahan (2000) responded to Huselid and Becker (2000) and did not back off either their analyses or conclusions about the measurement error issue previously identified.”
A Road Well Traveled: The Past, Present, and Future Journey of Strategic Human Resource Management (2017, background): “For instance, Huselid & Becker (2000) stated, “Based on four national surveys and observations on more than 2000 firms, our judgment is that the effect of a one standard deviation change in the HR system is 10–20% of a firm’s market value” (p. 851).”
PAY SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS AND QUIT PATTERNS OF GOOD, AVERAGE, AND POOR PERFORMERS (2007, unknown): “…is consistent with much of the macro-literature, but the appropriateness of this technique, and in particular, the reliability of HRM system measures provided by key informants, is the subject of a growing debate (e.g., see Gerhart, Wright, McMahan, & Snell, 2000; Huselid & Becker, 2000).”
Strategic HRM in North America: looking to the future (2008, unknown): “HR practices consist of the actual programs, processes and techniques that actually get operationalized in the unit (Gerhart, Wright, McMahan and Snell 2000; Huselid and Becker 2000).”
Achievements and challenges for work/life balance strategies in Australian organizations (2005, methodology): “While we acknowledge recent criticisms and debate regarding this approach, this methodology has been widely utilized in the HRM research literature (Gerhart et al., 2000a 2000b; Huselid and Becker, 2000; Wright et al., 2001).”
The Effect of Strategic Human Resource Management on Organizational Performance: The Mediating Role of High‐Performance Human Resource Practices (2013, background): “There is support for the argument that smaller firms are unlikely to feature significant within-firm variation in practices and systems, which is likely to improve reliability (Huselid & Becker, 2000).”
The turn to employees in the measurement of human resource practices: A critical review and proposed way forward (2019, methodology): “The year 2000 was chosen as the starting point for the analysis to coincide with the first major calls for the use of employee ratings of HR practices proposed in that year by Gerhart et al. (2000) and Huselid and Becker (2000).”
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HR PRACTICES AND FIRM PERFORMANCE: EXAMINING CAUSAL ORDER (2005, background): “…has been summarized by Huselid and Becker who stated “Based on four national surveys and observations on more that 2,000 firms, our judgment is that the effect of a one standard deviation change in the HR system is 10-20% of a firm’s market value” (Huselid & Becker, 2000; p. 851, emphasis added)”