HRM at a Crossroads: Comments on 'Evolution of Strategic HRM Through Two Founding Books: A 30th Anniversary Perspective on Development of the Field'

I agree with Bruce Kaufman's evaluation of the HRM field and the danger to its relevance if change does not take place in the field's almost exclusive use of normal science, lack of focus on organizational change and development and indifference to the development of useful and usable knowledge. I use the development of the Harvard Business School's first-ever required course in HRM and Managing Human Assets, the book that grew from the course, to illustrate why and how the strategic HRM perspective of the book emerged. I go on to argue that we do not need more proof that HRM practices are associated with financial performance. The best CEOs already believe this, though they need knowledge and practices that will enable them to develop a positive sustainable HRM system. HRM research, both normal and action science, must answer the question of how a "great" HRM system—practices, leadership, organization design, culture, and change processes—might be developed over time (its takes years) and how great companies can avoid the liquidation of intangible assets in the face of pressures for short-term performance. I describe my own work to illustrate the future direction HRM should take methodologically and conceptually.