Mixed Impressions. Respectable Work and Slow Progress in the Science of Personnel Management within German Speaking Countries

TL;DR: In this article, the authors present five contributions of this conference which consider the main problems with a science of personnel management, namely the explanation of the employee's behavior on the one side and the explanations of the employer's behavior at the other side.

Abstract: In 1961, i.e. 50 years ago, the first chair in personnel management was established at university level in Germany. This marks a good occasion to ask for the results of scientific research in the German speaking countries on the topic of personnel management. Can we observe significant advances in knowledge since then? What are the contents, the methods and the styles of the theoretical analyses and the empirical investigations on this highly contested terrain of economic reality? These questions were the main themes in the 8th annual conference of the "AKempor: Arbeitskreis fur empirische Personal- und Organisations fors chung" (Working Group on Empirical Personnel and Organizational Studies). In this special issue we present five contributions of this conference which consider the main problems with a science of personnel management, namely the explanation of the employee's behavior on the one side and the explanation of the employer's behavior at the other side. The issue considers the theoretical base of personnel management and the ideological functions that the contributions of personnel management scientists may have. 1. Advances in knowledge Advancement in knowledge is the most important aim in science. We want to understand the world, therefore we look for explanations. It is not so much the explicandum (the thing we want to explain) but the explicans we are interested as researchers. The explicans is the rule which connects the empirical observable phenomena and it is the core object of scientific progress: "Thus, scientific explanations, whenever it is a discovery, will be the explanation of the known by the unknown." (Popper, 1972, p. 191). Undoubtedly there are some other aims of science beside explanation and there is some dispute about the most important tasks of a scientist, as well as what would be the best way to carry out these tasks. Whichever philosophy of science one may prefer, there should be unanimous consent that at the base of all science lies good knowledge and - notwithstanding that (scientific) knowledge always will be imperfect - we should try to improve it (Bunge, 1983). The improvement of knowledge manifests itself in the discovery of new facts, in studying the substance of exciting hypotheses, in the development of profound theories, and in gaining more realistic images of the world. In other words: in the unmasking of unfounded intellectual claims and in preventing ideological appropriations of interpretation prerogatives. The articles in this issue provide their own answers to these questions. In the following I want to present some more considerations about the developments of research on personnel management. Admittedly they rest on my personal assessments, but they should nevertheless hold some truth and perhaps can stimulate further discussions and - if controversial - be subjected to more rigorous investigations. 2. Disappointing aspects I perceive that one has to register positive as well as negative aspects in the research on personnel management. The most prominent negative aspect is the lack of genuine own theoretical achievements in German literature on this topic. In general most research is carried out without any deeper connection to theoretical elaborations and if theoretical approaches are adopted they normally stem from other branches of the behavioural sciences (especially from the Anglo-Saxon literature). It therefore comes as no surprise that one seldom, if ever, can find a systematic comparison regarding the value of competing theories. This is a task which would include the design of sophisticated empirical studies. Often researchers are content with so called conceptual frameworks, i.e. with a collection of loosely coupled ideas, a preliminary listing of variables and some vague suggestions regarding possible connections between these variables. The resulting verbal constructions may give a superficial cognitive order but more often than not they remain noncommittal promises for further inquiries which cannot really serve as conclusive foundations for empirical investigations. …