Beyond the ‘e-’ in e-HRM: integrating a sociomaterial perspective

Figures & data

Table 1. Contrasting existing and sociomaterial perspectives on e-HRM.

Key concepts	Existing perspectives within e-HRM	Sociomaterial perspectives	Implications for future research
Technology	Conceptualisation: Unspecified component of e-HRM (‘black-box’) Technology is predictable and stable Technology is priorityised in research Causal assumptions: Technology and humans are distinct, interdependent entities Technology is a purposeful tool to improve efficiency and effectiveness of HRM processes or/and to collect and distribute information Technology is a driving force in transforming HR practices and HR professionals Adoption and Use: Technology must be adopted by users to achieve defined outcomes (intended or unintended) Various attributes of technology are perceived by users who then decide whether to use, misuse or not to use it	Conceptualisation: Technology is a complex sociomaterial entity, where material (physical or digital objects, bodies, spaces) is integral to organisational life Technology is emergent, shifting/impermanent and relational (e.g. Leonardi, 2013; Leonardi & Barley, 2010; Orlikowski & Scott, 2008) Casual assumptions: Affordances of the materiality (i.e. perceived function of technology) are relative to and unique for individuals, or groups of individuals, and can be perceived as constraints or enablers for intended actions (e.g. Bygstad et al., 2016; Faraj & Azad, 2012) Adoption and Use: Materiality of technology must be enacted (i.e. integrated into work processes) in order to lead to change Organizational life is bound by materiality, not only during the adoption period	How do material properties constitute technologies? For example, what are the material properties of HRM cloud systems? How are algorithms, inscribed practices, instructions, checklists, forms, web-technologies arranged to form materiality of technology? What are the sets of affordances that the materiality of technology can offer HR professionals, line managers, and employees? For example, what are the immediate outcomes that cloud systems such as Workday or SuccessFactors create for HR professionals? For HR professionals it may be a digital working space where human resources are administered, whereas for line managers it may mean control over employees, and for employees instant communication. What new functions are realized through the continuous use of technology? For example, the data generated through the use of technology can offer a variety of possibilities on how to work with it.
Actors	Conceptualisation: Actors are humans characterised by their knowledge, skills, competences Users of e-HRM are the main actors User behaviour: Intentions and perceptions guide user behaviour (i.e. to use or not use technology) during the adoption phase Users’ perceptions about technology are shaped through social interactions and a desire to conform Users institutionalise e-HRM practices by creating a shared understanding, or through the process of interpretations of e-HRM’s usefulness Actor roles: Actors are functionally defined (e.g. line managers, HR professionals, employees), and assumed to have mutually distinct roles Actor’s roles are fixed	Conceptualisation: Actors can be both human and non-human Actors are not limited to users but include any organisational actors practicing HRM, or subject to HRM User behaviour: Emphasis on actors’ agency, i.e. “a capacity to act” (whether human or non-human) Human agency can be constrained or afforded by material artefacts Materiality (objects, space, technology, data etc.) is inherent in human activities (e.g. Boudreau & Robey, 2005) Actor roles: Roles are defined by situated, patterned activities of actors HR roles are part of the organizational work system and are related to the roles of other occupational groups (line managers, employees). (e.g. Barley, 2015; Barley & Kunda, 2001)	How do actors enact their roles in HRM practices/processes? For example, what actors are involved in performance evaluation practice? Are line managers controlling and evaluating, employees doing self-assessment, or integrated software feeding in data records about everyday activities? How do human actors exercise their agency? How do they navigate the constraints of the materiality of technology? For example, how do line managers resolve/ avoid the constraints imposed by algorithms? How do technologies exercise agency? What actions can/do technologies take without humans directly controlling them? For example, how do algorithms work in the selection process?
HRM practices	Conceptualisation: Formal and predefined e.g. recruitment, performance appraisal, training and development Normative practices define organisational HRM activities and enable their effectiveness HRM practice outcomes: Emphasis on benefits of intended HRM practices for organisations HRM practice implementation: Standardised HRM practices across country borders are the path to reach strategic goals HRM practices are fixed (i.e. relatively stable through time and space) and normative, which organisations intend to carry out Appropriation (use of technology in line with its purpose) of HRM technology defines the quality and value of HRM for the organisation	Conceptualisation: HRM is ‘practiced’, i.e. reflects realities of organizational work HRM practice is the space where material and human agency meet to produce actions and construct realities Practices are routinized activities. i.e. reproduced in recognisable patterns (e.g. Schatzki, 2001) HRM practice outcomes: Emphasis on emergent HRM practices (e.g. Feldman & Orlikowski, 2011; Leonardi & Barley, 2010; Mazmanian et al., 2013) HRM practice ‘implementation’: Practices can change, sustain, or disappear HRM practices as formal and fixed cannot be placed in the sociomaterial environment as it is, it will be shaped and reshaped through its enactment (e.g. Francis et al., 2014; Pentland et al., 2012)	How are material artefacts and human agencies enacted in sociomaterial practices, i.e. what affordances are realised through agencies? For example, how are rating systems for contingent workers used by different organisational actors (internal or external)? How do new practices that emerge in sociomaterial arrangements become patterned and routinized? For example, what new HRM practices emerge around the relationships with contingent workers? How are normative and standardised HRM practices shaped when enacted in novel practices? For example, how will ‘collecting employee feedback’ as a standardised practice be shaped (e.g. different technology, processes or content) once used for reporting purposes?

Leonardi, P. M. (2013). Theoretical foundations for the study of sociomateriality. Information and Organization, 23(2), 59–76. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2013.02.002

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Leonardi, P. M., & Barley, S. R. (2010). What’s under construction here? Social action, materiality, and power in constructivist studies of technology and organizing. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 1–51. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5465/19416521003654160

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2008). 10 sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 433–474. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520802211644

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bygstad, B., Munkvold, B. E., & Volkoff, O. (2016). Identifying generative mechanisms through affordances: A framework for critical realist data analysis. Journal of Information Technology, 31(1), 83–96. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2015.13

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Faraj, S., & Azad, B. (2012). The materiality of technology: An affordance perspective. Materiality and organizing. Social Interaction in a Technological World, 237, 258.

 Google Scholar

Boudreau, M. C., & Robey, D. (2005). Enacting integrated information technology: A human agency perspective. Organization Science, 16(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0103

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Barley, S. R. (2015). Why the internet makes buying a car less loathsome: How technologies change role relations. Academy of Management Discoveries, 1(1), 5–35. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2013.0016

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Barley, S. R., & Kunda, G. (2001). Bringing work back in. Organization Science, 12(1), 76–95. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.1.76.10122

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Schatzki, T. (2001). Introduction: Practice theory. In T. Schatzki, K. Knorr Cetina, & E. von Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 1–14). Routledge.

 Google Scholar

Feldman, M. S., & Orlikowski, W. J. (2011). Theorizing practice and practicing theory. Organization Science, 22(5), 1240–1253. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0612

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mazmanian, M., Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. (2013). The autonomy paradox: The implications of mobile email devices for knowledge professionals. Organization Science, 24(5), 1337–1357. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0806

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Francis, H., Parkes, C., & Reddington, M. (2014). E-HR and international HRM: A critical perspective on the discursive framing of e-HR. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(10), 1327–1350. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2013.870309

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pentland, B. T., Feldman, M. S., Becker, M. C., & Liu, P. (2012). Dynamics of organizational routines: A generative model. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 1484–1508. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01064.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

Due to the nature of the review study, no new data associated with the study were produced. Data sharing does not apply to this article.