Fillable Printable Sample Critical Review
Fillable Printable Sample Critical Review
Sample Critical Review
1
Sample Critical Review (from a School of Management Tutor)
IMPORTANT!
This review is for guidance only. I have produced it in response to student
questions about what a critical reviewlooks like. Please do not include
headings in your assignments –I have included them here to aid navigation of
the article.
On re-reading my review I wondered whether I had written too much on the
methodological discussion at the expense of discussing the results. Having
said this, perhaps my focus is justified given that the problematic research
strategy has implications for the results.
You will see that I have cited around 15 papers in my review – you do not need
this many references in your assignment to get a good mark. I have simply
tried to demonstrate afew ways in which references might be incorporated
into your work.
[Harvard Reference]Behrends, T. (2007) ‘Recruitment practices in small and
medium enterprises. An empirical studyamong knowledge-intensive
professional service firms’. Management Revue, 18(1):55-74.
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. Theargument will be developed
through a critical review of Behrends‟ paper, discussing in turn its conceptual bases,
research methods, main findings, and practical implications.
2. [Brief Summary / Synopsis]Behrends‟ paper reports a study of 342 companies‟
recruitment practices. Inparticular 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.
2
3. The study utilised asurvey research strategy (3)to understand the recruitment
practices use in the focal firms (Methods). Behrends‟ research findingssuggest
recruitment and selection practices in SMKIPSFs, while distinct from the practices of
larger firms, are mostly suitable for the smaller firms in question (4). This finding
resonates with a core themerunning through Behrends‟ conceptualization of
recruitment in SMKIPSFs, and indeed smaller firms more generally, that these firms
are distinct from larger organizations (1).
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 lackingthe
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 (2).
5. In criticising the“management deficit” (2007: 57) perspective, Behrends does not
offer many examples of studies taking such a position (5). 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 (External views on the core theme).
3
6. The lack of supporting evidence (5)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 (2).
7. Behrends‟ alternative to the deficit viewof management of smaller firms is that
their approaches to people management should beviewed on their own terms. In
other words, the context of the organization should betaken into accountwhen
considering whether practices are appropriate (2).
8. Under the equivalence perspectiveorganizations are accepted to require certain
basic functions, like recruitment, but they are expected to differ in how they fulfil such
functional requirements (2). 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). External counter-argument and support (3)
4
9. Broadening his discussion beyond the primary concepts of deficit and equivalence
Behrends highlights the heterogeneity of organizations within an “SME” definition(2),
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.
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.
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).
5
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).
1
However anumber ofconcerns with
Behrends‟ research approach should be addressed. Methods (3)
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. Potential weakness (5)
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 approachmay be inappropriate. External source
criticism(5)
1
Eight businesses over the 250 employee ‘SME’ threshold were included in the 342 usable responses but these
were discounted by Behrends, leaving 334 organizations remaining for analysis.
6
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 ofHRM in SMEs (see for example
Sels et al, 2006) it remains problematic.
2
External source criticism(5)
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 (1). There is a tension, however,
in arguing for research that takes the context of smaller firms seriously but studying
these businesses via closed questions.Potential weakness (5) ... continuing below
...
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.
2
Behrends partially acknowledges this limitationon page 73 but fails to explain why the research design
incorporated a significant weakness he was aware of
7
Behrends‟ research strategy therefore appears ill-equipped to meet his own standard
regarding theimportance 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.
18. [Discussion of Results]The problematic nature of Behrends‟ methodological
approach makes it hard to discuss his reported findings with confidence (6).
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).External refs support (6)
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 limitationsalready discussed, Behrends‟
study suggests that SMKIPSFs may operate in ways similar to other SMEs(6).This
findingmay be a product of the research design, however if this idea can be
generalised there may be scope for further researchto 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,
8
to address the limitations of Behrends‟ studyand this seems to be the main practical
implication stemming from his reported study.
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 (6). Unfortunately fundamental difficulties with
Behrends‟conceptualisation and execution ofhis research mean that the reported
results must be treated with extreme caution (6).
Word count: 1492
9
References:
Abbott, B. (1993). "Training strategies in small service sector firms: employer and employee
perspectives." Human Resource Management Journal4(2): 70-87.
Bacon, N., P. Ackers, J. Storey and D. Coates (1996). "It's a small world: managing human
resources in small businesses." International Journal of Human Resource Management7(1):
83-100.
Curran, J. (2006).""Specificity" and "denaturing" the small business." International Small
Business Journal24(2): 205-210.
Curran, J. and R. Blackburn (2001). Researching the small enterprise. London, Sage.
Dennis, W. J. (2003). "Raising response rates in mail surveys of small business owners:
Results of an experiment." Journal of Small Business Management41(3): 278.
Duberley, J. P. and P. Walley (1995). "Assessing the adoption of HRM by small and
medium-sized manufacturing organizations." The International Journal of Human Resource
Management6(4): 891-909.
Holliday, R. (1995). Investigating small firms: nice work? London, Routledge.
Kotey, B. and P. Slade (2005). "Formal human resource management practices in small
growing firms." Journal of Small Business Management43(1): 16-40.
Marchington, M., M. Carroll and P. Boxall (2003). "Labour scarcity and the survival of small
firms: a resource-based view of the road haulage industry." Human Resource Management
Journal13(4): 5-22.
Paauwe, J. and P. Boselie (2005). "HRM and performance: what next?" Human Resource
Management Journal15(4): 68-83.
Rainnie, A. (1991). Small firms: between the enterprise culture and new times. Deciphering
the enterprise culture: entrepreneurship, petty capitalism and the restructuring of Britain. R.
Burrows. London, Routledge: 176-199.
Taylor, S. (2005). Thehunting of the snark: A critical analysis of human resource
management discourses in relation to managing labour in smaller organisations. Managing
labour in small firms. S. Marlow, D. Patton and M. Ram. Abingdon: Oxfordshire, Routledge:
18-42.
Torrès, O. and P.-A. Julien (2005). "Specificity and denaturing of small business."
International Small Business Journal23(4): 355-377.
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.
