Re-dressing the Technological Frames of Human

Resource Information Systems

Tanya Bondarouk

University of Twente, Department of Organization, Opeartions and Human Resources

P.O.Box 217 7500 AE Enschede The Netherlands

Abstract. This paper explores the linkages between the normative foundation

underlying the IT-enabled transformation of HR and insights out of sociology

in order to bridge the gap between intentions of IT-enabled HRM and its organ-

izational reality. I introduce the notion of HRM frames where the (IT-enabled)

HR transformation in organizations influences employees’ behaviors, at the

same time it is influenced by human actions. The framework gives the opportu-

nity to step beyond traditional polarities in the HR research (like subjective vs.

objective, deterministic vs. phenomenological), resulting in the analysis of un-

derlying assumptions, values, interpretations that employees have about IT-

enabled HRM in organizations. Such interpretations are central to understand

the role of IT-enabled change in the HR processes and their transformation like

role changes, competencies modifications, re-structuring and globalization of

the HR function.

1 Introduction: IT-enabled HRM Research Up-to-date and

Research Questions

The modern HRM is one arena in which the dictum ‘there is nothing constant but

change’ is particularly relevant. One of the recent key drivers of this everlasting

change is the application of Information Technologies (IT) in the HRM field, support-

ing its everyday activities, personnel administration, policy developing and decision

making. More and more working organisations have been introducing Information

Technologies for Human Resource Management, using a variety of names, for exam-

ple electronic HRM, digital HRM, virtual HRM. It is therefore probably not surpris-

ing that IT is given lots of tributes in its potential significant impact on the ways how

HRM is organized, allocated and accomplished.

In the literature there is a strong belief that IT-enabled HRM should facilitate the role

of HRM as a strategic partner, allowing them to undertake critical people manage-

ment activities [28]. A number of benefits are pronounced as expected from the intro-

duction of IT-enabled HRM in organizations:

- Integrated “total solution” approach to problems through the re-centralization of the HR

function;

Bondarouk T. (2007).

Re-dressing the Technological Frames of Human Resource Information Systems.

In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Human Resource Information Systems, pages 109-119

DOI: 10.5220/0002417201090119

 SciTePress

- more selective and strategic contribution from HRM by freeing staff from the burdens of

administration;

- greater efficiency and professional provision of HR services through simplifying services;

and through providing a single point of contact for clients;

- cost-effectiveness;

- more efficient resourcing through economies of scales in staffing;

- improved cross-group learning and sharing good practices through having a common

information base;

- better management of information, provided more consistently across the organization as a

whole;

- improved career development for HR staff; higher customer satisfaction through better

service specification;

- greater transparency of cost of services and easier monitoring of budgets [31, 33].

Despite of the growth of implementation of IT-enabled HRM, organizations continue

to experience mixed results with a combination of success and failure stories. Recent

studies, for example, indicate that in nearly half of the companies with a completely

integrated HR Information Systems, HRM was not viewed as a strategic partner [26],

but re-alignment of the HRM function led to the increase of the line managers’ work

stress .

Academics devote more and more attention to examining IT-enabled HRM in at-

tempts to explore this contradiction. Within the last decade, scientific knowledge as

regards IT-enabled HRM has comprises several conclusive notions about its goals

[8,27,33], its types [28], the effectiveness of different applications [7,23,37], and the

implementation of Human Resource Information Systems (HRIS) [2].

At the same time these studies discuss results of the introduction of IT-enabled HRM

in organizations only from a one-size-fits-all approach by considering overall IT-

enabled HRM’s impact as cost reduction, or organizational added value. Moreover,

the existing research into IT-based HRM has continued using the factors-based re-

search approach, by analyzing four-to-five variables, that influence the IT-HRM

adoption, HR competencies, changes in HRM roles [35], or IT-HRM effectiveness

[12]. Such studies are very useful in sensitizing the researcher in issues of impor-

tance, and, in some cases, to help developing guidelines to overcome constraints in

such an organizational change as introduction and diffusion of IT-enabled HRM.

However, first, the factor-based research tends to adopt cross-sectional survey meth-

ods, with little consideration of the dynamics of the HRM transformation process.

Second, these studies are inclined to consider HRM practices as communications

from the employer to employees about HRM content [6, 12], with modest thought

about the social constructions of HRM by the employees.

Therefore, this paper aims to make a contribution to the research into the IT-enabled

HRM transformation by adopting a process approach that involves in-depth case

studies. To this end, this paper examines the attempted HRM transformation with the

help of Information Technologies in organizations. Some of the key questions moti-

vating this research were thus: why do some organizations manage to transform their

110

HRM function with the help of IT easier than others? In what ways have social and

technological issues been significant in explaining the IT-enabled HRM transforma-

tion? To which extent people beliefs and perceptions construct the IT-enabled trans-

formation in large international organizations?

This is achieved by drawing on the Structuration theory and on HRM frames analysis.

The work demonstrates that the IT-enabled HRM transformation is a dynamic process

in which stakeholders frame and reframe their perceptions and thus, construct the

transformation of the HRM function.

1.1 Structuration Theory

Our research starts from the beliefs in the importance of subjective meanings as sym-

bolic actions in the process through which humans construct and reconstruct their

reality. This requires the use of field of studies of humans in their social settings so as

to describe, interpret, analyze, and understand the social world from the participants’

perspectives [4]. That is, the research is focused on the dynamic nature of the social

reality, which is both time and context dependent, and strives to understand the HRM

transformation from the participants’ perspectives, with the primary focus being the

meaning of HRM, HRM transformation and the use of IT for that, as well as their

expectations around this process, particularly with respect to their social, cultural, and

work contexts.

The first step in understanding basics of the structuration theory is to see its objec-

tives, driving forces. Giddens is very precise about it and describes it immediately in

the beginning of his The Constitution of Society (1984). His thought is that previous

dominant approaches in the social sciences are not enough to understand the social

reality. He states that the basic domain of social science study is neither the experi-

ence of the individual, nor the existence of any form of societal totality, but social

systems referring to regular patterns of enacted conduct by actors who interact with

each other in situations with specific conditions. “One of my principal ambitions in

the formulation of structuration theory is to put an end to each of [the] empire-

building endeavors” [14], meaning previously dominant approaches in social thought

– functionalism/structuralism seen by Giddens as too macro, and interpretiv-

ism/hermeneutics as too micro. So his task is to resolve a fundamental division within

the social sciences between those who consider social phenomena as determined by

the influence of “objective” social structures, and others who see them as products of

subjective interpretations. Giddens proposes to view “objective” structures and sub-

jective interpretations not as independent (even conflicting) elements but as mutually

interacting duality [24]. Therefore, social structures can be viewed as created by hu-

man agents in their actions, while those actions produce and reproduce the social

structures. Structuration is understood as a social process that involves the reciprocal

interaction between human agents and structural features of organizations: human

actions are enabled and constrained by structures, yet these structures are the result of

previous actions.

More specifically, Giddens proposes three dimensions of structures, to some extent

based on Marx, Weber and Durkheim, - signification, domination, and legitimation.

111

Attempting to apply the concept of structuration to the organizational life, Taylor

states that a structured organization implies that

- There is an established system of domination.

- The system is legitimated.

- It is inscribed in the framework of its members, as part of their normal interpretive

sense-making [34].

These dimensions are linked with corresponding dimensions of power, sanction, and

communication, through modalities of facilities, norms, and interpretive schemes

(figure 1).

Fig. 1. The interactions of human agents and institutional properties, mediated by modalities of

structures (adapted from Giddens [14]).

The recognition that human agents are knowledgeable and reflexive is one of the

central premises in the theory: “All social actors, all human beings are highly leant in

respect of k

nowledge which they possess and apply, in the production and reproduction of day-

to-day social encounters; the vast bulk of such knowledge is practical rather than

theoretical in character” [14, p. 22]. Reflexivity is not simply self-consciousness, but

mostly – the ability of human agents to continuously monitor of physical and social

contexts and activities. Through the regular actions of knowledgeable and reflexive

agents, patterns of structuration become established into standardized practices like

evaluating employees behavior or coordinating meetings. Over time the use of such

practices becomes traditional and institutionalized, forming the structural properties

of organizations. These structural properties (or structures) are drawn on by human

agents in their on-going interactions.

“Human actors are not only able to monitor their activities and those of others in the

regularity of day-to-day conduct, writes Giddens (1984, p. 29); they are also able to

‘monitor the monitoring’ in discursive consciousness.” Thus, interpretive schemes are

seen as stocks of knowledge that are applied reflexively in the supporting communi-

cation. Normative components of communications always center around the rights

and obligations expected from participants of interactions. If in formal codes of law

we can usually observe claimed symmetry between rights and obligations, such sym-

Interpretive

schemes

Meaning

Structure of

signification

Resources

Power

Structure of

domination

Norms

Moral sanction

Structure of

legitimation

Institutional

properties

Modalities of

structures

Human

actions

112

metry does not necessarily exist in every day practice. This observation allows Gid-

dens to conclude that in every day practice there are ‘contingent’ claims which have

to be sustained through the effective sanctions. Normative structures are seen as re-

flecting asymmetrical structure of domination.

Actions always incorporates all three dimensions. Modalities are considered as the

locus of interaction between the knowledgeable capacities of actors and the structural

features of the system [24]. However, splitting the duality of structures into these

dimensions serves more an analytical procedure than practical reality: in practice all

three are interlinked. Jones and Karsten [24] draw on an everyday example of organ-

izational life to illustrate the central concept of the structuration theory. The clothes

that employees wear to work reflect the influence of social structures that are repro-

duced by individual’s accepted practice. There is an expectation that people working

in an office will wear more or less formal, business-like clothing, while medial doc-

tors will wear white clothes in hospitals. When come across somebody in a work

environment we conclude based on structures of signification that inform us about a

person’s role wearing special clothes. Clothes do not indicate who a person is, con-

clude Jones and Karsten (2003), but also put across important messages about the

power he holds. It means that a police officer wearing special uniform will likely be

more successful if he were in plain clothes, to influence people’s behaviour. Struc-

tures of legitimation will define the appropriate dress code, where organizations may

differ in the degree of formality. However if certain employees challenge the dress

code, then over time, new structures (e.g., less formal) may develop. Thus, people are

viewed as being able to develop structures through their actions.

Giddens puts it explicitly: social structures do not exist without human actions, nor

they are material entities. Structure is what he calls “a virtual order of transformative

relations”, existing “only in its instantiations in such practices and as memory traces

orienting the conduct of knowledgeable agents” [14, p.17].

The Duality of Structure. The emphasis is given on structuration as an ongoing

process rather than structure as a static property of social systems [24]. Giddens [14,

p. 25] gives the following definitions:

- Structures are rules and resources, organized as properties of social systems; structure

only exists as ‘structural properties’.

- Systems are reproduced relations between actors or collectives, organized as regular

social practices.

- Structuration is conditions governing the continuity of transformation of structures, and

therefore the reproduction of social systems.

Structures for Giddens have two components: rules and resources.

When we think about rules, we are likely to imagine something very explicit as rules

of a game. That is precisely what he does not mean! [14, pp. 17-18]. Giddens’ argu-

ment recalls, notice Taylor [34], the distinction between practical and discursive

knowledge. Most activities demonstrate the presence of practical knowledge, and if

rules-following behavior enters activities, then most rules are practically, not discur-

sively grounded. Thus, rules are not even a part of what we consciously know but

what we logically do, as “routines of social life”.

113

Rules cannot be separated from resources, “which refer to the modes whereby trans-

formative relations are actually incorporated into the production and reproduction of

social practices” [14, p. 18]. One could probably got completely lost after reading the

previous statement, ‘what on earth could Giddens mean by that’? As we mentioned

earlier, his quantity, density, and specifity of writings is sometimes a lesson in inter-

pretations. There are two types of resources – allocative (capabilities to generate

commands over objects, goods, or material phenomena); and authoritative (capabili-

ties to generate commands over persons).

In fact, rules are always about acting on or transforming something either material or

human. They could get discursive recognition (“rationalized”) and then become rules:

in their usual connotation as explicitly setting of special parameters, or constraining

individual behaviors.

An important point is that structures do not exist as material artifacts, but only in

human memory traces and through social practices. Even for example, technology for

Giddens “does nothing, except as implicated in the actions of human beings” (Gid-

dens and Pierson [19, p. 82].

2 Structuration Theory and Empirical HRM Research

Giddens frequently stated that structuration was not intended as a concrete research

program [13, 18], and that his principles “do not supply concepts useful for the actual

prosecution of research” [16, p. 312]. He is also very critical to those who “have

attempted to import structuration theory in toto into their given area of study” [17 p.

213], but prefers those who use his concepts in a sparing and critical fashion [24].

One description of the role of structuration in empirical research is the use of princi-

ples derived from it as “sensitizing devices [17]. Among scientists who have put lots

efforts to clarify Giddens’ theory of structuration, common opinion is that structura-

tion is “fundamentally non-propositional” [1], and that it “does not give us anything

to test or to find out” [10, p.1080. Gregson [21] views structuration as a second-order

theory concerned not with explanation the events or contingencies but with conceptu-

alizing the general constituents of human society. In view of Giddens’ himself, struc-

turation should be seen as a generic theory meaning a meta-theory, a way of thinking

about the world rather than as an empirically testable explanation of human behavior

[15].

Gregson [15] even states that the structuration theory operates at too high level to

provide any guidelines for specific empirical settings. Giddens does not accept this

claim and provides some explanation on what he sees as a potential contribution of

structuration to the empirical social research [14,pp. 281 – 285].

I summarize general guidelines for the empirical HRM research:

The HRM research always has ethnographic, cultural aspects. And any HRM field of

inquiry has its constituted meanings before the study. (This is exactly what Giddens

means by ‘double hermeneutic’). An “entry” to such fields means interventions in

already existing meanings. Therefore, concepts in HRM are considered as ‘secon-

dary-order’ concepts as they are always built on existing knowledge and interpreta-

114

tions. HRM researchers, therefore, have a role of communicators, introducing frames

of meaning associated with certain contexts.

“It is important in social research to be sensitive to the complex skills which actors

have in co-ordinating the contexts of their day-to-day behavior” [14, p. 285]. These

skills influence happenings in the HRM life. It means that HRM events are predict-

able in their course, but such predictability is caused by the actors. Even if there are

unexpected consequences in the HRM study, researchers should always look for

interpretations within the flow of existing events.

HRM researchers cannot ignore time-space constitution of social life. It is not only

historians who are dealing with time and geographers who are dealing with space, but

HRM has to be sensitive to time-space coordination of social life. It implies studying

the contextual features of “locales through which actors move in their daily paths and

the regionalization of locales stretching away across time-space” [14, p. 286].

Later works of Giddens show further elaboration of a “structurationist program of

research” [15, 17]. Thus, 10 aforementioned principles are simplified to just three:

contextual sensitivity, the complexity of human intentionality and the nuances of

social constraint [17, p. 300]. Further he mentions four aspects of structuration that

are mostly generally relevant for social research: reproduction of practices, dialectic

of control, discursive penetration, and the double hermeneutic (ibid, p. 313).

We summarize the key features and implications of the structuration theory for the

HRM research as adapted from Jones and Karsten [24] (table 1).

3 The Transformation of HR: Making Sense through the HRM

Frames

The structuring HRM transformation refers to the processes through which partici-

pants influence the developments within the HRM function, and the ways in which

these processes reproduce particular social contexts of work. The structuring HRM

transformation is influenced by participants interpretations of their work, social con-

text, HRM policies and the information technology used to enable HRM transforma-

tion; their access to HRM, organizational and technological resources, and the norma-

tive rules that guide their organizational performance (figure 2).

115

Table 1. Key features of structuration theory, their implications and potential issues for the

HRM research (adapted from Jones and Karsten [24]).

Feature of structuration

theory

Implication Potential issues

Duality of structure Structure and action are

inseparable and co-existent.

Structure exists only

through action. It never

pre-exists action.

Structure is a “virtual order

of transformative relations”

Rules and resources exist

only in their instantiation

and as a memory traces

orienting conduct.

Material resources influ-

ence social practices only

through their incorporation

in processes of structura-

tion.

Essential recursiveness of

HRM

Structure is produced and

reproduced in every instance

of action.

Social phenomena are

temporary regularities in

an ongoing process.

People always have the

possibility to do otherwise

Structural constraint simply

places limits upon the feasi-

ble range of options open to

an actor in a given circum-

stances.

Compliance with structural

constraint implies choice to

do so.

Agents are knowledgeable

about their actions and

continuously reflect on their

conduct

People are aware of their

condition and reflect upon it.

People may not be discur-

sively aware of their

knowledge.

Unacknowledged conditions

and unintended conse-

quences

Production and reproduction

of society is not wholly

intended or comprehended

by people.

Social generalizations are

temporally and spatially

circumscribed.

Routine is integral to the

continuity of the personality

of the agent and to the insti-

tutions of society

Individual identity and social

institutions are sustained

through routine.

The seed of change is there

in every act, which con-

tributes towards the repro-

duction of any ‘ordered’

form of HRM.

Time space distanciation Societies “stretch” over

spans of time and space.

The importance of face-to-

face interaction for HRM

and the capability of tech-

nologies to facilitate inte-

gration “at a distance”.

Double hermeneutic Concepts that sociological

observers describe are al-

ready constituted as mean-

ingful by social actors and

can themselves become

elements of the actors’ un-

derstanding of their own

condition.

People can reflexively

appropriate the re-

searcher’s understanding

of their condition.

116

Fig. 2. Structuring of the IT-enabled HRM Transformation,adapted from Orlikowski, [30].

3.1 Frames

A major premise of the social cognitive research is that people act on the basis of

their interpretations of the world, and in doing so they enact particular social realities

and give them meanings [5, 30, 36]. The frames of reference held by people in or-

ganizations serve as implicit guidelines to shape interpretations of organizational

events. Thus, an understanding of people’s interpretations of HRM transformation is

critical to understand their interactions with the HRM system. To interact with the

HRM system, people have to make sense of it; and in this sense-making process, they

develop particular assumptions, expectations, and knowledge of HRM, which then

shape subsequent actions towards HRM. Even if these assumptions, interpretations

and frames of reference are taken-for-granted and rarely studied or reflected upon,

they nevertheless do play an important role in influencing how people think and act

towards HRM.

Borrowing the concept of “schema” from cognitive psychology [3], an individual

“frame of reference” has been described as a “repertoire of tacit knowledge that is

used to impose structure upon, and impart meaning to, otherwise ambiguous social

and situational information to facilitate understanding” [20, p. 56]. A variety of terms

has been used to express the idea of cognitive frames, addressing in parallels notions

of mental models [29]; cognitive maps [11, 9, 25]; cognitive frameworks [5]; scripts

[20].

Then, an important issue in understanding the role of frames in management research,

is to see them as pictures or visual aid in understanding and selecting elements of the

thoughts of an individual. In a less profound way, frames are defined as organized

knowledge structures that allow individuals to interact with their environment

Institutional Properties of the Organization

- Meaning Structures

- Power Structures

- Moral Structures

Participants’ Actions:

- HRM professionals

- Line managers

- Employees

HRM Frames

Cultural Assumptions about IT-enabled HRM transformation

1 2

Process of Structuring

HRM Transformation

1 - Organizational conditions for

IT-enabled HRM Transformation

2 – Influence of HRM Frames on

IT-enabled HRM transformation

3 – Frames consequences of HRM

transformation

4 – Organizational consequences

of HRM transformation

117

(Mathieu et al, 2000, p. 274). They include assumptions, knowledge, expectations,

being expressed symbolically through language, visual images, metaphors and stories

(Orlikowski and Gash, 1996). Frames are flexible in time and context (recall Giddens,

1984), and they are structured more as networks of meanings than as linear schemes.

By facilitating decision-making and problem-solving processes of people, frames

allow them to explain behavior of the world around them, to recognize relationships

between components, and to construct expectations for what is likely to occur next

(Rouse and Morris, 1986). Hence, frames have three crucial purposes: they help peo-

ple to describe, explain, and predict events in their environment [11, 29].

References

1. Archer, M.: Human Agency and Social Structure: a Critique of Giddens. In: Clark, J.,

Modgil, C., and Modgil, J. (eds.): Anthony Giddens: Consensus and Controversy. Falmer

Press, Brighton UK (1990) 73 – 84

2. Ball, K.S.: The Use of Human Resource Information Systems: a Survey. Personnel Review

30 (2001) 677 – 693

3. Bandura, A.: Social Foundations of Thought and Action: a Social Cognitive Theory, Pren-

tice-Hall Englewood Cliffs NJ (1986)

4. Barrett,.M.I.: Challenges of EDI Adoption for Electronic Trading in the London Insurance

Market. European J. Inf. Systems 8 (1999) 1 – 15

5. Bartunek, J.M., and Moch, M.K.: Third-order Organizational Change and the Western

Mystical Tradition. J. Org. Change Man. 7 (1994) 24 – 41

6. Bowen, D.E., Ostroff, C.: Understanding HRM-firm Performance Linkages: the Role of the

“Strength” of the HRM System. Academy Man. Review 29 (2004) 203 – 221

7. Buckley, P.K., Minette, D. Joy, Michaels J.: The Use of an Automated Employment Re-

cruiting and Screening System for Temporary Professional Employees: A Case Study.

Human Resource Management 43 (2004) 233-241

8. Cober, R.T., Brown, D.J., Blumental, A.J., Doverspike, D., Levy, P.: The Quest for the

Qualified Job Surfer: It’s Time the Public Sector Catches the Wave. Public Personnel Man.

29 (2000) 479 – 494

9. Cossette, P., Audet, M.: Mapping of an Idiosyncratic Schema. J. Man.Studies 29 (1992)

325 – 347

10. Craib, I.: Anthony Giddens. Routledge, London UK (1992)

11. Eden, C.: On the Nature of Cognitive Maps. J. Man. Studies 29 (1992) 261 – 265

12. Guzzo, R.A., Noonan, K.A.: Human Resource Practices as Communications and the Psy-

chological Contract. Human Resource Man. 33 (1994) 447 – 462

13. Giddens, A.: Comments on the Theory of Structuration. J. Theory Social Behavor 13

(1983) 75-80

14. Giddens, A.: The Constitution of Society. Polity, Cambridge UK (1984)

15. Giddens, A.: A Reply to My Critics. In: Held, D., Thompson, J.B. (eds.): Social Theory of

Modern Societies: Anthony Giddens and His Critics. Cambridge University Press, Cam-

bridge UK (1989) 249 – 301

16. Giddens, A.: The Consequences of Modernity. Polity, Cambridge UK (1990)

17. Giddens, A.: A Modernity and Self-Identity. Polity, Cambridge UK (1991)

18. Giddens, A.: The Transformation of Intimacy. Polity, Cambridge UK (1992)

19. Giddens, A., Pierson, C.: Conversations with Anthony Giddens. Polity, Cambridge UK

(1998)

118

20. Gioia, D.A.: Symbols, Scripts, and Sense-Making: Creating Meaning in the Organizational

Experience. In: D.A. Gioia (eds.): The Thinking Organization, Jossey-Bass. San-Francisco

California (1986) 317 – 335

21. Gregson, N.: On the Ir(relevance) of Structuration Theory to Empirical Research. In: Held,

D., Thompson, J.B. (eds.): Social theory of Modern Societies: Anthony Giddens and his

Critics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK (1989) 235 – 248

22. Held, D., Thompson, J.B.: Social theory of Modern Societies: Anthony Giddens and his

Critics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK (1989)

23. Hustad, E., Munkvold, B.E.: IT-Supported Competence Management: A case study at

Ericsson. Knowledge Man. Spring (2005) 78-88

24. Jones, M., Karsten, H.: Review: Structuration Theory and Information Systems Research,

Research Papers in Management Studies, WP 11 (2003)

25. Langfield-Smith, K.: Exploring the Need for a Shared Cognitive Map. J. Man. Studies 29

(1992) 350 – 368

26. Lawler, E.E., Mohrman, S.A.: HR as a Strategic Partner: What Does it Take to Make it

Happen? Human Resource Planning 26 (2003) 15 – 29

27. Lengnick-Hall, M.L., Moritz, S.: The Impact of e-HR on the Human Resource Man-

agement Function. J. Labour Research 24 (2003) 365-379

28. Lepak, D.P., Snell, S.A.: Virtual HR: Strategic Human Resource Management in the 21

Century. Human Resource Man. Review 8 (1998) 215 – 234

29. Mathieu, J.E., Goodwin, G.F., Heffner, T.S., Cannon-Bowers, J.A.: The Influence of

Shared Mental Models on Team Process and Performance. J. Applied Psychology 85

(2000) 273 – 283

30. Orlikowski, W.J., Gash, C.: Technological Frames: Making Sense of Information Technol-

ogy in Organisations. ACM Transactions on Inf. Systems 12 (1994) 174 – 207

31. Reilly, P.: HR Shared Services and the Realignment of HR. Institute for employment stud-

ies, report 368. Brighton IES (2000)

32. Rouse, W.B., Morris, N.M.: On Looking into a Black Box: Prospects and Limits in the

Search for Mental Models. Psychological Bulletin 100 (1986) 349 – 363

33. Ruël, H.J.M., Bondarouk, T.V., Looise, J.C.: E-HRM: Innovation or Irritation. An Explora-

tion of Web-based Human Resource Management in Large Companies. Lemma Publishers,

Utrecht (2004)

34. Taylor, J.R., Groleau, C., Heaton, L., Van Every, E.: The Computerization of Work. Sage

Publications, California USA (2000)

35. Veldhoven, M., Voerman, M.: De Attitude van Werknemers Ten Aanzien van E-HRM

Verklaard. Een Empirische Studie bij Philips. Tijdschrift voor HRM 15 (2004) 12 – 18

36. Weick, K., Sutcliffe, K.M., Obstfeld: Organizing and Process of Sensemaking. Organiza-

tion Science 16 (2001) 409 – 421

37. Williamson, I.O., D.P. Lepak, J. King: The Effect of Company Recruitment Web Site

Orientation on Individuals' Perception of Organizational Attractiveness. J.Vocational Be-

havior 63 (2004) 242-263

119