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 review looks 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 a few ways in which references might be incorporated into your work.

[Harvard Reference] 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.

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.

2. [Brief Summary / 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.

2

3. The study utilised a survey research strategy (3) to understand the recruitment

practices use in the focal firms (Methods). 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 (4). 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 (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 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 (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 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 (2).

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 (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 a number of concerns 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 approach may 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 of HRM 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 limitation on 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 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.

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 limitations already discussed, Behrends‟

study suggests that SMKIPSFs may operate in ways similar to other SMEs (6). 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,

8

to address the limitations of Behrends‟ study and 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 of his 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 Journal 4(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 Management 7(1):

83-100.

Curran, J. (2006). ""Specificity" and "denaturing" the small business." International Small

Business Journal 24(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 Management 41(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

Management 6(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 Management 43(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

Journal 13(4): 5-22.

Paauwe, J. and P. Boselie (2005). "HRM and performance: what next?" Human Resource

Management Journal 15(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). The hunting 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 Journal 23(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.