921131

research-article2020
GJH0010.1177/2397002220921131German Journal of Human Resource ManagementStrohmeier

Article

German Journal of

Digital human resource

Human Resource Management
2020, Vol. 34(3) 345­–365
© The Author(s) 2020
management: A conceptual
clarification Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/2397002220921131
DOI: 10.1177/2397002220921131
journals.sagepub.com/home/gjh

Stefan Strohmeier
Saarland University, Germany

Abstract
The concept of digital human resource management and related concepts such as the digitization
of human resource management, the digitalization of human resource management, the digital
transformation of human resource management, and the digital disruption of human resource
management are gaining prominence in scholarly discussion. Frequently, however, the use
of these concepts is implicit, heterogeneous, and proliferating. These concepts, thus, lack
the “conceptual clarity” necessary in research. Therefore, this article aims at a conceptual
clarification of digital human resource management and of related concepts of the digitization
of human resource management, the digitalization of human resource management, the digital
transformation of human resource management, and the digital disruption of human resource
management. To do so, the article references general literature on digital organizations to
develop a terminology and typology of digital human resource management. The terminology
offers precise and parsimonious definitions of the concepts and relationships between them,
offering a basic understanding. The typology offers precise and parsimonious ideal-types, which
order and classify phenomena related to digital human resource management, in turn expanding
knowledge about these phenomena. Together, the terminology and typology clarify the concept
of digital human resource management and related concepts, uncover digital human resource
management as an evolutionary advancement of previous conceptualizations of technology-based
human resource management, and provide a conceptual basis for future work on digital human
resource management.

Keywords
digital disruption of human resource management, digital human resource management, digital
human resource strategy, digitalization of human resource management, digital transformation
of human resource management, digitization of human resource management, e-HRM,
electronic human resource management

Corresponding author:
Stefan Strohmeier, Saarland University, Chair of Management Information Systems, Campus C3.1, 66123
Saarbrücken, Germany.
Email: s.strohmeier@mis.uni-saarland.de
346 German Journal of Human Resource Management 34(3)

Introduction: growing needs to clarify digital human

resource management
Concepts such as “digitization,” “digitalization,” “digital transformation,” or “digital
disruption” currently rank among the most prominent and discussed terms. Roughly
speaking, such concepts denote an ever-increasing use of technology and corresponding
substantial changes in numerous domains of business and society. This notion is also true
for the domain of human resource management (HRM). In HRM, the concept of digital
HRM (e.g. Pantelidis, 2019; Thite, 2019) and related concepts such as digitization (e.g.
Meijerink et al., 2018; van Kruining, 2017), digitalization (e.g. Dixit, 2017; Parry and
Strohmeier, 2014), digital transformation (e.g. Bissola and Imperatori, 2018; Vardarlier,
2020), and digital disruption (e.g. Larkin, 2017; Platanou and Mäkelä, 2016) of HRM are
increasingly used. Conceptual components such as “transformation” and even more “dis-
ruption” imply substantial changes for HRM, hinting at a clearly considerable impor-
tance of these concepts.
Currently, however, these concepts are frequently used in an implicit, heterogeneous,
and proliferating manner. First, authors frequently use the concepts in an implicit man-
ner; that is, they do not offer explicit definitions but rather assume that readers under-
stand the intended meaning (e.g. Bajer, 2017; Larkin, 2017). Second, authors use the
concepts in a heterogeneous manner; that is, they use concepts with multiple and some-
times contradictory understandings (e.g. understandings of digital disruption of Larkin,
2017, and Platanou and Mäkelä, 2016). Third, authors frequently use concepts in a pro-
liferating manner; that is, they use new concepts to denote well-known old phenomena
(e.g. Martini and Cavenago, 2018; Thite, 2019). The current discussion on digital HRM
therewith evidently lacks “clarity of concepts” (Suddaby, 2010).
Clarity of concepts, however, is important for different interrelated reasons. First,
conceptual clarity is important to preventing a mere proliferation of concepts (Suddaby,
2010). It must be ensured that digital HRM (and related concepts) not merely represent
“new designations for old phenomena.” Otherwise, new concepts are just used as syno-
nyms of established concepts and most notably of the prominent concept of electronic
(e-) HRM (e.g. Bondarouk et al., 2016; Strohmeier, 2007). Second, conceptual clarity is
necessary to avoid confusion and misunderstanding (Suddaby, 2010). It must be ensured
that human resource (HR) researchers share a common understanding that facilitates
mutual communication on digital HRM. Third, conceptual clarity is necessary to avoid
research deficiencies (Suddaby, 2010). The use of ill-defined concepts must be avoided,
as they do not allow for precise operationalizations and lead to disparate results of
research on digital HRM.
It is against this backdrop that this article aims at a conceptual clarification of digital
HRM and related concepts. To do so, the article develops a terminology and typology of
digital HRM. Developing a terminology constitutes an initial clarification step that offers
precise and parsimonious definitions of concepts and relationships between them, in turn
offering a basic understanding (e.g. Suddaby, 2010). Developing a typology constitutes a
subsequent clarification step that offers precise and parsimonious ideal-types that order
and classify phenomena related to digital HRM, further deepening their understanding
Strohmeier 347

(e.g. Doty and Glick, 1994). Together, the proposed terminology and typology can clar-
ify the concept of digital HRM and related concepts and provide a conceptual basis for
future work on the topic.

Conceptual clarification—toward an understanding of

digital HRM
As a basis for developing a terminology and typology of digital HRM, in the following,
existing literature on the general digitalization of organizations is referenced (see, for
example, the reviews of Gebayew et al., 2018; Hanelt et al., 2018; Hausberg et al., 2018;
Henriette et al., 2015; Ismail et al., 2017; Kahre et al., 2017; Kuusisto, 2017; Morakanyane
et al., 2017; Reis et al., 2018; Vesti et al., 2017, 2018; Vial, 2019). This seems appropriate
for several reasons: First, digitalization constitutes a general organizational phenome-
non, relevant not only for HRM but for all organizational domains (e.g. Gebayew et al.,
2018; Hanelt et al., 2018). It is, thus appropriate to conceptualize digital HRM in accord-
ance with the general digitalization of organizations. Second, there are mutual dependen-
cies of the digitalization of the organization and digitalization of HRM (e.g. Amladi,
2017; Bondarouk et al., 2017). It is thus appropriate to conceptualize the digitalization of
HRM together with the general digitalization of organization to consider such dependen-
cies. Third, the general digitalization literature is more developed than the literature on
digital HRM. It is thus appropriate to capitalize on existing general insights in clarifying
digital HRM.

Terminology
Terminology of digital organization.  Reviews of the general digitalization research show
that diverse explicit definitions of concepts exist and are quite heterogeneous (see, for
example, reviews of definitions by Ismail et al., 2017; Kuusisto, 2017; Morakanyane
et al., 2017; Vesti et al., 2018; Vial, 2019). In addition, attempts to derive overarching
definitions from existing definitions have produced varied results (e.g. Morakanyane
et al., 2017; Vial, 2019). Moreover, general research often understands the concepts of
digitization, digitalization, digital transformation, and sometimes even the digital disrup-
tion of organizations as more or less interchangeable and thus does not delineate between
them (e.g. Henriette et al., 2015; Morakanyane et al., 2017). However, certain research
contributions have shown that a delineation of concepts is possible and valuable in
allowing for the identification and understanding of different related empirical phenom-
ena (e.g. Brennen and Kreiss, 2014; De Clerck, 2017). In sum, general research offers a
rich collection of terminological suggestions and insights. Nevertheless, a common and
sustainable definition and delineation of digitalization concepts is missing. Thus, in the
following, a delineation and definition of concepts of digital organization and of digitiza-
tion,1 digitalization, digital transformation, and the digital disruption of organizations is
developed.
A first clarification implicit in general research refers to the distinction of process-
and result-related concepts. Process-related concepts refer to activities. Result-related
348 German Journal of Human Resource Management 34(3)

concepts refer to outcomes of activities. It is evident that digitization, digitalization, digi-

tal transformation, and the digital disruption of organizations describe activities and thus
are process-related concepts. “Digital” describes a specific state of an organization, and
thus digital organization is a result-related concept. As an obvious relationship between
process- and result-related concepts, the former imply the latter. For example, the digi-
talization of a library involves a process that leads to the creation of a digital library as a
result.
A second clarification given by general research refers to the distinction of technical
and socio-technical concepts (Brennen and Kreiss, 2014; Hanelt et al., 2018). Technical
concepts denote mere technical phenomena. Socio-technical concepts are broader and
denote both technical and human phenomena. Following suggestions made in the litera-
ture, digitization can be understood as a simply technical concept (Brennen and Kreiss,
2014; De Clerck, 2017). Digitization in turn refers to the technical conversion of analo-
gous information into binary digits (thus, the designation of digitization) with the aim of
an automated processing of this information (Brennen and Kreiss, 2014; De Clerck,
2017). Converting analogue books in a library into digital files or converting analogue
customer record cards into digital customer data constitute examples of digitization.
Conversely, digitalization, digital transformation, and digital disruption integrate techni-
cal and human phenomena and thus constitute broader socio-technical concepts (Brennen
and Kreiss, 2014; De Clerck, 2017; Hanelt et al., 2018). For example, the digitalization
of a library would consider human tasks and purposes. The conversion of books into
digital books might be purposeful to shorten wait times for particularly popular books.
The conversion of analogue customer data into digital customer data might be purposeful
to streamline the library’s lending processes. The digitalization of a domain thus might
be understood as the purposeful digitization of the domain. As an obvious relationship
between technical and socio-technical concepts, the latter include but extend beyond the
former. For example, the socio-technical digitalization of a library involves its mere
technical digitization but goes beyond this level in considering human purposes and
tasks when digitizing.
A third clarification implicit in general research refers to the distinction of voluntary
and involuntary concepts. Voluntary concepts describe processes and results that are
desired and therefore actively encouraged by organizations. Involuntary concepts
describe processes and results that are undesired and thus are not actively encouraged but
instead passively suffered by organizations. Following the literature, the digital disrup-
tion of an organization must be understood as an involuntary phenomenon (e.g. Baiyere
and Salmela, 2013; Christensen et al., 2015; Møller et al., 2017). Since digital disruption
ultimately results in a marginalization or even complete displacement of an organization
(e.g. Baiyere and Salmela, 2013; Christensen et al., 2015; Møller et al., 2017), it is cer-
tainly highly undesirable. Moreover, disruption emerges based on the activities of exter-
nal organizations that wish to reap the benefits of digitalization while accepting that it
may disrupt other organizations. Digital disruption is thus a passive phenomenon. For
example, when a global Internet company decides to offer all books funded by advertis-
ing revenues worldwide to all Internet users for free, this decision most likely implies a
digital disruption of all pay-based libraries. Conversely, the digitization, digitalization,
Strohmeier 349

and digital transformation of organizations and the result of a digital organization denote
voluntary phenomena. Digital disruption in turn does not produce a digital organization,
but a marginalized or even completely displaced organization. It thus fundamentally dif-
fers from voluntary concepts. Voluntary and involuntary phenomena, however, are
related in that the former, when performed by external organizations in a specific way,
imply the latter.
A fourth clarification implicit in general research refers to the distinction of strategic
and generic concepts. Strategic concepts distinctly address the strategic level of an
organization. Generic concepts are broader and address the operational and possibly stra-
tegic level of organizations. Following the literature, the digital disruption (Møller et al.,
2017; Vesti et al., 2017) and transformation (e.g. Hanelt et al., 2018; Ismail et al., 2017)
of organizations denote strategic phenomena. Digital disruption poses a strategic threat
as elaborated above. Digital transformation denotes a strategic opportunity based on the
potential for digital technologies to create innovative business opportunities as expressed
by “digital business strategies” (Bharadwaj et al., 2013). Digital transformation thus
involves a fundamental strategic change of the entire organization due to the business
potential of digital technologies (e.g. Hanelt et al., 2018; Hausberg et al., 2018; Ismail
et al., 2017). A library that fully dispenses with analogue books, library buildings, librar-
ians, and so on and instead exclusively offers digitized books via the Internet serves as a
simple example of digital transformation. Further concepts such as digitalization are
broader and can but must not refer to the strategic level. The above example of the digital
transformation of a library thus also serves as an example of digitalization. Contrarily,
mere operational changes such as implementing a digital lending system at a library
would not count as digital transformation but as digitalization. The strategic concept
of digital transformation can thus be understood as a subset of the generic concept of
digitalization.
The above clarifications allow for the development of parsimonious definitions for
the respective concepts. With respect to clearly differing organizational results, however,
two distinct concept clusters emerge (see Figure 1).
A first cluster covers concepts grouped around the result of a digital organization:

•• The digitization of organizations denotes the technical process of converting

analogue organizational information into digital organizational information for
automated processing.
•• The digitalization of organizations denotes the socio-technical process of exploit-
ing digitization potentials for operational and/or strategic organizational
purposes.
•• The digital transformation of organizations denotes the socio-technical digitaliza-
tion sub-process of exploiting digitization potentials for strategic organizational
purposes.
•• Digital organization denotes the socio-technical result outcome of the digitaliza-
tion of organizations.

A second cluster refers to disruption producing a marginalized organization:

350 German Journal of Human Resource Management 34(3)
Voluntary Phenomena

Digizaon of Digitalizaon of Organizaon

Organizaon Digital Organizaon
Digital Transformaon of Org.

Technical Process
Socio-technical Process Socio-technical Result
Involuntary Phenomena

Digitalizaon of Digital Disrupon

External Organizaons of Organizaon 

Socio-technical Process Socio-technical Result

Figure 1.  Terminology of digital organizations.

•• The digital disruption of organizations denotes a socio-technical process of mar-

ginalization due to the digitalization of external organizations.

Terminology of digital HRM..  Based on the above elaboration, the transfer of general ter-
minology to HRM can be discussed. First, a general concept can be transferred if the
organizational phenomenon denoted by the concept has a comparable counterpart in
HRM. In this case, an already existing HR phenomenon is denoted. Second, however, a
general concept can also be transferred if the organizational phenomenon designated by
the concept currently has no comparable counterpart in HRM but could be realized in the
future. In this case, a potential future HR phenomenon is denoted.
Starting with the digitization concept, in HRM there are also technical processes of
converting analogue information into digital information for processing purposes. A sim-
ple example refers to scanning paper-based application credentials of applicants. Thus,
there is a comparable counterpart in HRM, and the general digitization concept can be
transferred.
Second, regarding the digitalization concept, also in HRM, the potential for technical
digitization is exploited to achieve operational and limited strategic goals. Digitization
potentials are especially exploited for a broad range of operational purposes from payroll
processing to course administration. There have also been attempts to exploit digitization
potentials for strategic purposes—mainly by aligning digital technologies with func-
tional HR strategies (e.g. Burbach, 2012). However, the frequency and success of such
attempts appear to be rather limited at present (see the review of Marler and Fisher,
2013). Thus, regarding a comparable counterpart in HRM, exploitation for operational
purposes has been realized while exploitation for strategic purposes has not yet been
fully realized. Despite this “hybrid” situation, the digitalization concept can be trans-
ferred to HRM.
Strohmeier 351

Third, the exploitation of digitization potentials for strategic purposes is particularly

relevant to the digital transformation concept. Fully transferring the concept to HRM
implies not merely aligning digital technologies to pre-formulated HR strategies but for-
mulating and executing HR strategies that are directly based on the potential for digitiza-
tion to create value for an organization. In concretizing this notion, it makes sense to
transfer the concept of digital business strategy to HRM whereby a digital HR strategy
can be defined as an HR strategy formulated and executed by exploiting digitization
potentials to create value for an organization (transferred from Bharadwaj et al., 2013).
To the best of my knowledge, such strategies have not yet been realized. However, they
might become achievable in the future as can be briefly demonstrated from the example
of HR analytics (HRA). Rather than merely improving HR information provisions, HRA
constitutes a broad and ambitious concept for the entire HR domain (e.g. Marler and
Boudreau, 2017). HRA aims at systematically creating value for an organization by bas-
ing all HR decisions on evidence. If such an evidence-based approach of HRM could be
established, systematic quality improvements across all HR functions would result.
Since such improvements on their part create value for an organization, HRA can be
interpreted as (the nucleus of) an HR strategy. Moreover, since the value creation
intended by HRA is directly based on digitization potentials, HRA could be understood
as (the nucleus of) a digital HR strategy. Thus, even though there has presumably been
no full digital transformation in HRM, a future realization is imaginable and the concept
can be transferred.
Fourth, regarding the digital HRM concept, the results of digitalization processes can
also be observed in HRM. The concept can thus be transferred, and changes induced by
digitalization could be subsumed as digital HRM. While minor operational changes of
HRM count as digital HRM in the same way as far-reaching strategic transformations,
the concept covers a broad range of phenomena. This coverage means that both simple
HR payroll accounting and a complex HRA approach constitute examples of digital
HRM.
Finally, regarding the digital disruption concept, there is currently no known case
whereby HRM has been marginalized or even completely displaced due to external digi-
talization activities. However, the mere possibility of digital disruption can be illustrated
by the following hypothetical example. Ongoing external digitalization might first spur
a massive loss of employees due to digitalization-based automation (e.g. Frey and
Osborne, 2013) and second spur a massive replacement of remaining employees by self-
employed “e-lancers” (e.g. Aguinis and Lawal, 2013). Taken together, both external digi-
talization developments might drastically reduce the number of employees and
consequently marginalize HRM. Despite currently lacking a comparable counterpart in
HRM, the concept of digital disruption therewith can be transferred as well.
In sum, in sometimes denoting existing phenomena while at other only denoting
imaginable phenomena, general terminology can be transferred to the HRM domain. As
in the general delineation and definition, two distinct conceptual clusters emerge. The
first cluster covers concepts that focus on the result of digital HRM:

•• The digitization of HRM denotes the technical process of converting analogue

HR information into digital HR information for automated processing.
352 German Journal of Human Resource Management 34(3)

•• The digitalization of HRM denotes the socio-technical process of exploiting digi-

tization potentials for operational and/or strategic HRM purposes.
•• The digital transformation of HRM denotes the socio-technical digitalization sub-
process of exploiting digitization potentials for strategic purposes of HRM.
•• Digital HRM denotes the socio-technical result of the digitalization of HRM.

Distinct from the above, the second cluster refers to disruption:

•• The digital disruption of HRM denotes the socio-technical process of marginali-

zation due to digitalization external to HRM.

The digital disruption of HRM in turn differs significantly from the other concepts
and shows no relation to digital HRM.

Typology
Typology of digital organizations.  Reviews of research on general digitalization uncover a
certain set of categorizations and frameworks for clarifying the different concepts (see,
for example, the overview in Ismail et al., 2017). Moreover, research reviews also offer
certain categorizations and frameworks based on the reviewed literature (see, for exam-
ple, Hanelt et al., 2018, or Vial, 2019). A fully developed explicit typology of digital
organizations, however, is missing. Thus, a parsimonious typology of digital organiza-
tions is developed in the following. In doing so, methodical suggestions for typology
development are considered (Doty and Glick, 1994; Weber, 1904). As with any typol-
ogy, the aim is to contribute to understanding of an underlying organizational phenom-
enon rather than describing and categorizing real organizations. The typology thus
abstracts from numerous aspects of real organizations on one hand and (over-)empha-
sizes aspects relevant for understanding on the other (Doty and Glick, 1994; Weber,
1904).
To develop the typology, an implicit categorization inherent in the digitalization lit-
erature over time is employed. The general literature discusses digitalization in different
phases with different subsequently growing levels of digitalization (e.g. Bharadwaj et al.,
2013; Coltman et al., 2015; Henderson and Venkatraman, 1993; Kahre et al., 2017). In
this discussion, the intensity of digitalization is determined by whether it supports only
operational purposes or additionally different types of strategic purposes. To develop the
typology, organizational operations and strategies are employed as description dimen-
sions, which can show the values “digitalized” or “not digitalized.” The application of
this procedure results in a parsimonious typology of digital organizations with four ideal-
types (see Figure 2).
A first ideal-type does not exploit the potential of digitization for operational or stra-
tegic purposes. It is thus characterized by the non-application of digital technologies.
Although this ideal-type is evidently not digital, it is necessary for the typology to pre-
vent the digitalization of organizations from being taken for granted.
A second ideal-type is characterized by the operational application of digital tech-
nologies. Potentials of digitization here are employed to support organizational
Strohmeier 353

Organizaon
analogue digital

Analogue Digital Digital Digital

Organizaon Organizaon I Organizaon II Organizaon III
(Non-Applicaon) (Operaonal Applicaon) (Strategic Alignment) (Strategic Integraon)

Digital
Strategy Strategy Strategy Strategy

Operaons Operaons Operaons Operaons

Digitalizaon

Digital Transformaon

Analogue Digital

Figure 2.  Typology of digital organizations.

operations. The core goal is to increase the speed, decrease the costs, and increase the
quality of organizational operations (e.g. Chan and Reich, 2007; Henderson and
Venkatraman, 1993). Examples include applying information systems to manage order
processing or inventory control. Strategic goals of an organization are not supported by
this ideal-type.
A third ideal-type is characterized by the strategic alignment of digital technologies
(Chan and Reich, 2007; Coltman et al., 2015; Henderson and Venkatraman, 1993). This
ideal-type goes beyond mere operational exploitation and aims at supporting the execu-
tion of strategy. To this end, digital technologies are aligned with strategic objectives to
systematically support the execution of an organizational strategy such as cost leadership
or differentiation. Strategic alignment thus involves exploiting digitization potentials
after the formulation of a business strategy. Functional strategies for digital technologies
are thus a derivative of business strategies of this ideal-type (Coltman et al., 2015). As an
example, organizations adopting a “prospector” strategy profit from analytical technolo-
gies (e.g. data warehouses offering systematic information about markets) while those
adopting other business strategies cannot capitalize on such technologies in the same
way (e.g. Sabherwal and Chan, 2001). This ideal-type thus describes a first variety of
supporting strategic goals by digitalization.
Finally, a fourth ideal-type is characterized by the strategic integration of digital tech-
nologies (Bharadwaj et al., 2013; Kahre et al., 2017). This ideal-type extends beyond
strategic alignment since digital technologies are already directly integrated in the for-
mulation of strategy. The overarching objective is to exploit digitization potentials to
create new business opportunities and identify related strategies. Functional strategies
354 German Journal of Human Resource Management 34(3)

regarding digital technologies are no longer derivative but are integrated with business
strategies. As mentioned above, the resulting “fusion” of functional digital technology
and business strategies is termed as a “digital business strategy” (Bharadwaj et al., 2013).
For instance, a “digitized solution strategy” aims at reformulating the value proposition
of a production company by integrating a combination of products and related digital
services based on data (see examples given in Sebastian et al., 2017). Understandably,
this ideal-type is characterized by the highest degree of digitalization, as the strategy and
basic purpose of the organization are essentially digital.
In being organized along a digitalization continuum, the developed typology repre-
sents a classic typology type (Doty and Glick, 1994): two ideal-types characterized by
minimum and maximum digitalization constitute the respective endpoints of this con-
tinuum. Two further ideal-types with successively increasing digitalization intensities
are positioned between them. Evidently, the digitalization of organizations starts with
the second ideal-type and gradually intensifies to the fourth ideal-type. While the con-
cept of digital organizations remains rather broad on a mere terminological level, three
clearly differing sub-categories of digital organizations can be distinguished based on the
typology. These three types provide a concretization and categorization of digital organi-
zations. Moreover, the digital transformation of organizations starts with the third ideal-
type but fully manifests only with the fourth ideal-type. Executing previously formulated
strategies based on digital technologies implies changes (Henderson and Venkatraman,
1993). However, the formulation and execution of digital organizational strategies
implies more systematic and fundamental changes (e.g. Hanelt et al., 2018; Ismail et al.,
2017; Kahre et al., 2017; Reis et al., 2018). By contrast, the concept of digital disruption
necessarily shows no relation to the typology of digital organizations, as digital disrup-
tion does not result in digital but marginalized organizations.
As mentioned, the above ideal-types map the scholarly discussion on the digitaliza-
tion of organizations over time. Since past organizations were analogue, the historic
discussion of organizations did not consider digitalization. A first phase of discussion of
the digitalization of organizations started over half a century ago and strongly referred
to the operational application of digital technologies (Chan and Reich, 2007). A second
phase emerged almost three decades ago and brought about an intensive and long-lasting
discussion on the strategic alignment of digital technologies in organizations (see the
review by Coltman et al., 2015). It was only recently in a third phase that strategic inte-
gration was first discussed as a “paradigmatic shift” (Kahre et al., 2017) in exploiting
digitization potentials in organizations (Bharadwaj et al., 2013). The idea of a systematic
strategic integration of digitization potentials thus constitutes both the core trigger and
core subject of the current intensive discussion on the digital transformation of organiza-
tions (e.g. Hanelt et al., 2018; Ismail et al., 2017; Kahre et al., 2017; Reis et al., 2018).

Typology of digital HRM..  Based on the above-elaborated typology, a transfer to the

HRM domain can be discussed. Aiming again at a parsimonious set of comparable
description dimensions, there are obvious counterparts of organizational operations and
strategy in HRM. The counterpart of organization strategy is HR strategy, which is
understood as a deliberate plan to add value to an organization by supporting overarch-
ing strategic organizational objectives (e.g. Boxall and Purcell, 2011). The counterpart
Strohmeier 355

HRM
analogue digital

Analogue HRM Digital HRM I Digital HRM II Digital HRM III

(Non-Applica on) (Opera onal Applica on) (Strategic Alignment) (Strategic Integra on)

Digital
HR Strategy HR Strategy HR Strategy HR Strategy

HR Pracces HR Pracces HR Pracces HR Pracces

Digitaliza on

Digital Transforma on

Analogue Digital

Figure 3.  Typology of digital HRM.

of organizational operations is HR practices, which are understood as a set of HR activi-

ties performed to afford employees abilities, motivation, and opportunities to perform
(e.g. Ostroff and Bowen, 2000). Employing HR strategies and practices as description
dimensions and the digitalization or non-digitalization of these as values results in a
parsimonious typology with four ideal-types (see Figure 3).
The non-application of digital technologies constitutes a first ideal-type. As a major
characteristic, this ideal-type is fully analogue; that is, neither HR practices nor HR strat-
egy is supported by digital technologies. Again, while not a digital ideal-type, it has been
necessary for a typology of digital HRM since uncovering that the digitalization of HRM
is not mandatory.
The operational application of digital technologies constitutes a second ideal-type.
As a major characteristic, digital technologies are employed to support operational HR
practices such as recruiting or compensation for this ideal-type. This support is realized
by automating HR practices with the aim of increasing their speed, decreasing their
costs, and improving their quality (e.g. Snell et al., 1995; Strohmeier, 2007). Strategic
purposes are not supported by this ideal-type.
The strategic alignment of digital technologies constitutes a third ideal-type (e.g.
Burbach, 2012; Marler, 2009; Parry, 2011). Again, this ideal-type aims at the digital
support of the execution phase, yet not of the formulation of HR strategies. Thus, the
overall idea of providing value is developed without considering digitization potentials.
Once an HR strategy has been formulated, a derivative second step refers to aligning
digital technologies with an HR strategy to support and execute it (Marler, 2009; Martin
and Reddington, 2010). While the concrete technology used depends on the concrete
strategy, technologies frequently refer to recruiting, performance management,
356 German Journal of Human Resource Management 34(3)

compensation, and/or the development of employees. For instance, organizations that,

based on a “prospector” business strategy, pursue an “internal labor market” HR strat-
egy will heavily invest in learning technologies that support and implement the strategy
(Martin and Reddington, 2010).
The strategic integration of digital technologies constitutes a fourth ideal-type. This
ideal-type integrates digital technologies already in the strategy formulation phase by
directly basing the value proposition of HRM on the potentials of digitization. As briefly
outlined above, this integration implies the formulation and execution of digital HR strat-
egies as equivalent of digital business strategies. HRA and Employee Relationship
Management (ERM) can be cited as initial examples of such future digital HR strategies:
HRA aims at creating value for an organization through digitization-based systematic
improvements of HR decisions (e.g. Marler and Boudreau, 2017). ERM aims at creating
value for an organization through digitization-based building and maintaining mutually
valuable relationships with current and potential employees (e.g. Strohmeier, 2013).
Both ideas thus aim at adding direct value to an organization based on digitization
potentials.
The above typology is thus likewise based on a digitalization continuum with two
ideal-types with minimum and maximum digitalization as endpoints. Again, the digitali-
zation of HRM starts with the second ideal-type and gradually intensifies to the fourth
ideal-type. The resulting three different sub-categories of “digital HRM” allow for a
concretization and categorization of the concept of digital HRM that has remained rather
broad in the terminological discussion. Moreover, regarding the digital transformation of
HRM, well-established argumentation claims that the operational application of digital
technologies implies a “liberation” of HR professionals from operational burdens that on
its part allows for the value-adding strategic activities of HR professionals (e.g. Grant
and Newell, 2013; Shrivastava and Shaw, 2003). In this case, however, not digital tech-
nologies but humans bring about the transformation. Consequently, an operational appli-
cation of digital technologies might imply a human rather than digital transformation of
HRM. Thus, digital transformation again starts with the third ideal-type but again fully
manifests only with the fourth ideal-type. The systematic alignment of digital technolo-
gies with HR strategies under the third ideal-type systematically changes the means with
which HR creates value. This change is regularly understood as “transformational”
(Bondarouk et al., 2016; Ruël et al., 2004). In being directly based on digitization poten-
tials, the fourth ideal-type especially implies a digital transformation of HRM. The fusion
of the managerial and technical dimension of HRM implied by this type will be accom-
panied by complex, deep, and thus “transformational” changes of HRM. Again, the digi-
tal disruption of HRM is not related to the digital HRM typology, as it does not result in
digital but marginalized HRM.
The above ideal-types partly map yet partly also extend beyond the current scholarly
discussion. A historic phase focused on analogue HRM; that is, it did not consider digi-
talization since it had not yet emerged. A first phase of discussing digital HRM started
half a century ago and discussed mainly operational applications of digital technologies
(e.g. Walker, 1980). A quarter of a century ago, a second phase of discussing digitali-
zation began and for the first time reflected the strategic alignment of digital technolo-
gies (to the best of my knowledge, such “transformational” applications of digital
Strohmeier 357

Figure 4.  Integrated typology of digital organizations and digital HRM.

technologies were introduced by Snell et al., 1995; for a review of this discussion, Marler
and Fisher, 2013). Under the umbrella concept of “electronic (e-) HRM,” this discussion
phase continues to this day. The idea of a strategic integration of digitization potentials
as suggested by the fourth ideal-type, however, has so far not been discussed and adds a
new dimension to the discussion. The current conceptualization of digital HRM in turn
covers the previous conceptualization of technology-based HRM and develops it further.
Given this development, digital HRM is best understood as an evolutionary advance-
ment of previous conceptualizations of technology-based HRM.

Integrated typology of digital organization and digital HRM.  The above isolated develop-
ment of a digital HRM typology does not explicitly map numerous managerial as techni-
cal dependencies between the digitalization of an organization and the digitalization of
HRM (e.g. Amladi, 2017; Bondarouk et al., 2017; Hunt, 2014). The digitalization of both
domains implies new mutual possibilities as well as new mutual requirements. The digi-
talization of organizational production, for instance, might provide numerous sensor data
on employees with broad opportunities to (further) digitalize HRM yet might also urge
HRM to offer production employees digital real-time scheduling to realize real-time pro-
duction (e.g. Strohmeier, 2018). To consider such mutual relationships, a combination of
both typologies can be proposed (see Figure 4).
The integrated typology produces 16 pairs of possible ideal-type combinations. In
addition to “balanced” combinations with similar digitalization intensities, the typology
also includes “lopsided” combinations with clearly dissimilar digitalization intensities.
These combinations allow for conceptualizing possible synergies and tensions between
digital organizations and digital HRM. This explicit consideration of dependencies
358 German Journal of Human Resource Management 34(3)

between the digitalization of HRM and the digitalization of the general organization
offers a further conceptual advancement not explicitly considered in earlier conceptions
of technology-based HRM.

Discussion: toward a consideration of digital HRM

The above conceptual clarification provides definitions, delineations, and corresponding
ideal-types of digital HRM and related concepts. Based on this clarification, digital HRM
can be understood as a conceptual advancement of previous understandings of technol-
ogy-based HRM. In particular, the innovative strategic integration of digital technologies
based on “digital HR strategies” evidently entails both great promises and great chal-
lenges. Thus, future scholarly consideration of digital HRM requires guidance regarding
core tasks to be performed. Based on the above results, core interrelated tasks refer to the
theoretical explanation, empirical investigation, and socio-technical design of digital
HRM. Given that each of these responsibilities is voluminous and multifaceted, some
rough outlines are delineated in the following.

Theoretical explanations of digital HRM

Theoretical explanations are necessary for a deeper understanding of basic regularities
underlying both the process of digitalizing HRM and the result of digital HRM. Beyond
this necessity, theoretical explanations also form a mandatory basis for empirical and
design research in digital HRM. Since the conceptualization of digital HRM mainly
focuses on the macro-level, it is compatible to a broader set of macro- or organization-
level theories. Given that a broad range of aspects is to be covered, it is to be expected that
a broader set of different theories will be necessary. In seeking suitable approaches, the
research on digital organizations proposes a set of already employed theories (see the
overview given by Hanelt et al., 2018). Since an anthology of theories suitable for explain-
ing (certain aspects of) digital HRM is far beyond the scope of this article, the neo-config-
urational approach (e.g. Park and El Sawy, 2013) and resource-based view (e.g. Bharadwaj
et al., 2013) are briefly mentioned as possible approaches. The neo-configurational
approach theorizes digital HRM as a limited set of organizational configurations that
emerge within a certain context and comprise of different elements. The elements on their
part conjuncturally cause certain organizational outcomes. Thus, the approach allows for
a systematic understanding of the emergence of different types of (non-)digital HRM and
the causation of relevant consequences. Against this background, the emergence and out-
comes of different types of “digital HR strategy” can be also explained by the approach
(Misangyi et al., 2017). The resource-based view theorizes that certain resources can pro-
vide sustainable competitive advantages when they are valuable, rare, inimitable, and
exploited. Against this theoretical backdrop, both humans and digital technologies can be
understood as resources of an organization with the potential for a competitive advantage.
In particular, digital HR strategies can be understood as (ideas on) the fusion of human
and technological resources aiming at producing corporate advantages (Barney, 1991). As
briefly indicated, there are diverse recognized theoretical approaches that are directly suit-
able for explaining and founding digital HRM.
Strohmeier 359

Figure 5.  Researching the state of digital HRM.

Empirical investigations of digital HRM

Empirical investigations are necessary for gleaning insights into digital HRM. Initially,
the conceptualization of digital HRM is not restricted to certain empirical methods and
allows likewise for qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method approaches. Given the
anticipatable complexity of digitalization topics such as interrelations between the digi-
talization of organizations and of HRM, the use of different methodical approaches
seems to be frequently indicated. Moreover, the conceptualization of digital HRM is not
restricted to certain empirical topics. However, due to the macro-level nature of the con-
cept, mainly macro-level issues are addressed. While a comprehensive elaboration of
topics is again far beyond the scope of this article, the two core topical areas of the state
and development of digital HRM are briefly addressed in the following.
Investigating the state of digital HRM implies different interrelated aspects. The dis-
tribution of organizations across the different ideal-types must initially be examined to
uncover existing digitalization patterns (see the example in Figure 5).
Moreover, given that HRM has rather struggled in realizing the strategic alignment of
digital technologies (see the review by Marler and Fisher, 2013), it is of interest to
uncover whether operational application still constitutes the dominant type (as implied
by the collection of white points shown in Figure 5) or whether this situation has changed.
Related to this challenge, it is of interest to determine whether specific real-types of digi-
tal HRM can be detected (e.g. different characteristic real-types of an operational appli-
cation of digital technologies). In particular, real-types of strategic integration are of
interest, and it should be investigated whether and if so, which digital HR strategies
already exist. Of course, the interaction of digital HRM with overall digital organization
360 German Journal of Human Resource Management 34(3)

also constitutes a topic for further inquiry. In this regard, it is of interest to determine if
the digitalization of organizations and HRM is balanced (as indicated by the collection
of colored points shown in Figure 5) or if “lopsided” pairs combine high and low levels
of digitalization. Moreover, the concrete managerial and technical interrelations between
both digitalization domains are also of interest. Investigating these and further aspects
should provide a detailed account of existing real-types of digital HRM. Regarding exist-
ing real-types, respective contexts and consequences are also of interest (e.g. Bondarouk
and Brewster, 2016; Strohmeier, 2007). Regarding the context, it is of interest to deter-
mine which contextual forces contribute to the emergence of certain real-types. Since the
context refers to internal and external contexts of digital HRM, the digitalization of an
organization, as considered in the integrated typology, constitutes an important but not
exclusive contextual component. Regarding consequences, it is of interest to determine
which concrete changes are associated with identified real-types. An important conse-
quence doubtlessly refers to the (multiple facets of) digitalization success. Particularly
because the success of digitalization is frequently taken for granted, it is important to
emphasize that the success of digitalization and different digitalization intensities is an
open empirical question. Beyond success, multiple further consequences are of rele-
vance. In addition, unexpected and undesired consequences such as the increased techni-
cal vulnerability of HRM or increased surveillance of employees also require particular
consideration (Strohmeier, 2007).
Investigating the development of digital HRM expands the above investigation of the
mere state. Understanding the digitalization of HRM as an ongoing process that started
decades ago broadens the perspective toward dynamic aspects. In aiming at detecting
interesting dynamic patterns of digitalization, typical positions that real-types of digital
HRM subsequently adopt over time (“digitalization paths”) are of interest. When inves-
tigating paths of digitalization, it is important to note that different ideal-types might also
constitute ideal-typical digitalization phases that organizations successively pass
through—ranging from a historic, fully analogue HRM to current, fully digitalized ones.
However, the respective phases do not constitute a mandatory path of digitalization that
all organizations must follow. Organizations may persistently relate to a certain (non-)
digital ideal-type without the need to switch successively to more digitalized ideal-types.
As a variety, digitalization paths may proceed only within an ideal-type (“intra-type digi-
talization paths”). Moreover, HRM may start directly on a digitalized level without the
need to successively traverse the preceding ideal-types (“born digitals”). Finally, organi-
zations may reduce their levels of digitalization over time, introducing the largely disre-
garded but relevant and interesting phenomenon of “de-digitalization” (and corresponding
“de-digitalization paths”). For these reasons, investigating actual digitalization paths
constitutes a future relevant topic.

Socio-technical designs of digital HRM

Socio-technical designs are necessary for an appropriate and practical realization of digi-
tal HRM. This is realized by developing innovative solutions for digital HRM. Based on
the above elaboration, it is obvious that such solutions have a complex socio-technical
nature, that is, comprised of interrelated managerial (e.g. van Aaken, 2004) and technical
Strohmeier 361

(e.g. Hevner et al., 2004) components. Rather than waiting for innovations in digital
HRM to emerge in practice and investigating them ex post facto, research should accom-
pany and even guide practice by (developing, evaluating, and then) providing appropri-
ate solutions. While design generally refers to all digital ideal-types, it is obvious that the
strategic integration of digital technologies constitutes the core challenge of design
research. Again, developing different scenarios of a strategic integration of digital tech-
nologies is beyond the scope of this article, but a brief example can be drafted. As men-
tioned, the ideas of HRA and ERM show basic features of and potential for a digital HR
strategy. Design thus involves further developing concepts of HRA and ERM toward the
creation of a fully digital HR strategy. Another design task involves developing, evaluat-
ing, and providing related technical artifacts that can realize HRA and ERM. For ERM,
this realization, for instance, refers to the development of prototypes of ERM systems,
which offer the collaborative, operational, and analytical functionalities that realize the
concept (Strohmeier, 2013). Therefore, a starting point for design research could involve
elaborating on the managerial and technical realization of such concepts. While it consti-
tutes only an initial suggestion for design research, it uncovers the complexities and
challenges of the third task in considering digital HRM.

Conclusion—taking the next step

Against the backdrop of increased yet unclear consideration in research, this article pro-
vides a conceptual clarification of digital HRM and related concepts. Based on general
research on digital organizations, a terminology and typology of digital HRM could be
developed. The results suggest a perspective that is not fundamentally different from
previous perspectives on technology-based HRM but that incorporates and develops the
previous perspective further. A core advancement of this article lies in its introduction of
the idea of a strategic integration of digital technologies (“digital HR strategy”) and in its
corresponding further development of the concept of the digital transformation of HRM.
Moreover, the integration of the digitalization of HRM with the digitalization of organi-
zations marks a conceptual step forward. Digital HRM thus constitutes a further evolu-
tionary step in conceptualizing technology-based HRM. As the digitalization of HRM
accelerates, the need for corresponding research efforts increases. This article provides a
conceptual basis for such research and is intended to support the next step of research on
technology-based HRM.

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Renate Ortlieb, Astrid Reichel, and Stephan Kaiser for their helpful and con-
structive comments on an earlier version of this paper.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

ORCID iD
Stefan Strohmeier https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0723-5964
362 German Journal of Human Resource Management 34(3)

Note
1. Please note that the differentiation between “digitization” and “digitalization” constitutes a
particularity of the English language. Most other languages use just one term, which is usu-
ally a language-specific variety of “digitalization.”

References
Aguinis H and Lawal SO (2013) eLancing: a review and research agenda for bridging the science-
practice gap. Human Resource Management Review 23(1): 6–17.
Amladi P (2017) HR’s guide to the digital transformation: ten digital economy use cases for trans-
forming human resources in manufacturing. Strategic HR Review 16(2): 66–70.
Baiyere A and Salmela H (2013) Disruptive innovation & information technology—charting a
path. In: Proceedings of the 24th Australasian conference on information systems (ACIS),
Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 4–6 December 2013, pp. 1–11. Melbourne, VIC, Australia:
RMIT University.
Bajer J (2017) Editorial: digital transformation of HR. Strategic HR Review 16(2): 53–54.
Barney JB (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management
17(1): 99–120.
Bharadwaj A, El Sawy O, Pavlou P, et al. (2013) Digital business strategy: toward a next genera-
tion of insights. MIS Quarterly 37(2): 471–482.
Bissola R and Imperatori B (2018) HRM 4.0: the digital transformation of the HR department. In:
Cantoni F and Mangia G (eds) Human Resource Management and Digitalization. Abingdon:
Routledge, pp. 51–69.
Bondarouk T and Brewster C (2016) Conceptualising the future of HRM and technology research.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 27(21): 2652–2671.
Bondarouk T, Parry E and Furtmueller E (2016) Electronic HRM: four decades of research on
adoption and consequences. The International Journal of Human Resource Management
28(1): 1–34.
Bondarouk T, Ruël HJ and Parry E (2017) Electronic HRM in the Smart Era. Bingley: Emerald.
Boxall P and Purcell J (2011) Strategy and Human Resource Management. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Brennen S and Kreiss D (2014) Digitalization and digitization. Culture Digitally, 8 September.
Available at: http://culturedigitally.org/2014/09/digitalization-and-digitization/ (accessed 12
May 2020).
Burbach R (2012) Strategic alignment: the sine qua non of e-HRM implementation? In: Tansley C and
Williams H (eds) In: Proceedings of the 4th international e-IHRM conference: innovation, creativ-
ity and e-HRM, Nottingham, UK, 28 March 2014, pp. 103–127. Nottingham: Trent University.
Chan YE and Reich BH (2007) IT alignment: what have we learned? Journal of Information
Technology 22(4): 297–315.
Christensen CM, Raynor ME and McDonald R (2015) What is disruptive innovation? Harvard
Business Review 93(12): 44–53.
Coltman T, Tallon P, Sharma R, et al. (2015) Strategic IT alignment: twenty-five years on. Journal
of Information Technology 30(2): 91–100.
De Clerck J (2017) Digitization, Digitalization and Digital Transformation: The Differences.
i-SCOOP. Available at: http://www.i-scoop.eu/digitization-digitalization-digital-transformation-
disruption/ (accessed 12 May 2020).
Dixit P (2017) Digitalisation—an emerging trend in human resource practices. Imperial Journal of
Interdisciplinary Research 3(4): 2134–2138.
Strohmeier 363

Doty DH and Glick WH (1994) Typologies as a unique form of theory building: toward improved
understanding and modeling. The Academy of Management Review 19(2): 230–251.
Frey CB and Osborne MA (2013) The future of employment: how susceptible are jobs to comput-
erisation? Technological Forecasting and Social Change 114: 254–280.
Gebayew C, Hardini IR, Panjaitan GHA, et al. (2018) A systematic literature review on digi-
tal transformation. In: Proceedings of the 2018 international conference on information
technology systems and innovation (ICITSI), Bandung, Indonesia, 22–25 October 2018,
pp. 260–265. Piscataway: IEEE.
Grant D and Newell S (2013) Realizing the strategic potential of e-HRM. The Journal of Strategic
Information Systems 22(3): 187–192.
Hanelt A, Bohnsack R, Marz D, et al. (2018) Same, same, but different!? A systematic review of
the literature on digital transformation. In: 78th annual meeting of the academy of manage-
ment, Chicago, IL, 10–14 August 2018.
Hausberg J, Liere-Netheler K, Packmohr S, et al. (2018) Digital transformation in business
research: a systematic literature review and analysis. In: DRUID18, Copenhagen Business
School, Copenhagen, Denmark, 11–13 June 2018.
Henderson JC and Venkatraman N (1993) Strategic alignment: leveraging information technology
for transforming organizations. IBM Systems Journal 38(1): 472–484.
Henriette E, Feki M and Boughzala I (2015) The shape of digital transformation: a systematic
literature review. In: MCIS 2015 proceedings, Samos, Greece, 2–5 October 2015. Available
at: https://aisel.aisnet.org/mcis2015 (accessed 12 May 2020).
Hevner AR, March ST, Park J, et al. (2004) Design science in information systems research. MIS
Quarterly 28(1): 75–105.
Hunt CS (2014) Managing human capital in the digital era. People and Strategy 37(2): 36–41.
Ismail MH, Khater M and Zaki M (2017) Digital business transformation and strategy: what do we
know so far? Working Paper, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, November.
Kahre C, Hoffmann D and Ahlemann F (2017) Beyond business—IT alignment—digital business
strategies as a paradigmatic shift: a review and research agenda. In: 50th Hawaii international
conference on system sciences, Hilton Waikoloa Village, HI, USA, 4–7 January 2017.
Kuusisto M (2017) Organizational effects of digitalization: a literature review. International
Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior 20(3): 341–362.
Larkin J (2017) HR digital disruption: the biggest wave of transformation in decades. Strategic HR
Review 16(2): 55–59.
Møller L, Gertsen F, Johansen SS, et al. (2017) Characterizing digital disruption in the general
theory of disruptive innovation. In: ISPIM conference proceedings, Vienna, Austria, 18–21
June 2017.
Marler JH (2009) Making human resources strategic by going to the net: reality or myth? The
International Journal of Human Resource Management 20(3): 515–527.
Marler JH and Boudreau JW (2017) An evidence-based review of HR analytics. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management 28(1): 3–26.
Marler JH and Fisher SL (2013) An evidence-based review of e-HRM and strategic human
resource management. Human Resource Management Review 23(1): 18–36.
Martin G and Reddington M (2010) Theorizing the links between e-HR and strategic HRM: a
model, case illustration and reflections. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management 21(10): 1553–1574.
Martini M and Cavenago D (2018) E-HRM configurations: an explorative analysis of types, driv-
ers and outcomes of digital HRM. Academy of Management Global Proceedings. Epub ahead
of print 22 May. DOI: 10.5465/amgblproc.surrey.2018.0001.abs.
364 German Journal of Human Resource Management 34(3)

Meijerink J, Boons M, Keegan A, et al. (2018) Call for Papers: Special issue of the International
Journal of Human Resource Management: digitization and the transformation of human
resource management. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. DOI:
10.1080/09585192.2018.1503845.
Misangyi VF, Greckhamer T, Furnari S, et al. (2017) Embracing causal complexity: the emergence
of a neo-configurational perspective. Journal of Management 43(1): 255–282.
Morakanyane R, Grace AA and O’Reilly P (2017) Conceptualizing digital transformation in busi-
ness organizations: a systematic review of literature. In: 30th Bled eConference on digital
transformation—from connecting things to transforming our lives, Bled, Slovenia, 18–21
June 2017.
Ostroff C and Bowen DE (2000) Moving HR to a higher level: HR practices and organiza-
tional effectiveness. In: Klein KJ and Kozlowski SWJ (eds) Multilevel Theory, Research,
and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions. New York:
Jossey-Bass, pp. 211–266.
Pantelidis I (2019) Digital human resource management. In: Boella MJ and Goss-Turner S (eds)
Human Resource Management in the Hospitality Industry: A Guide to Best Practice. London:
Routledge, n.p.
Park Y and El Sawy OA (2013) The value of configurational approaches for studying digital busi-
ness strategy. In: Fiss PC, Cambré B and Marx A (eds) Configurational Theory and Methods
in Organizational Research. Bingley: Emerald, pp. 205–224.
Parry E (2011) An examination of e-HRM as a means to increase the value of the HR function. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management 22(5): 1146–1162.
Parry E and Strohmeier S (2014) HRM in the digital age—digital changes and challenges of the
HR profession. Employee Relations 36(4): i–iii.
Platanou K and Mäkelä K (2016) HR function at the crossroads of digital disruption. Työn 1:
19–26.
Reis J, Amorim M, Melão N, et al. (2018) Digital transformation: a literature review and guide-
lines for future research. In: Rocha Á, Adeli H, Reis LP, et al. (eds) Trends and Advances in
Information Systems and Technologies. Cham: Springer, pp. 411–421.
Ruël H, Bondarouk T and Looise JK (2004) E-HRM: innovation or irritation. An explorative
empirical study in five large companies on web-based HRM. Management Revue 15(3):
364–380.
Sabherwal R and Chan YE (2001) Alignment between business and IS strategies: a study of pros-
pectors, analyzers, and defenders. Information Systems Research 12(1): 11–33.
Sebastian IM, Ross JW, Beath C, et al. (2017) How big old companies navigate digital transforma-
tion. MIS Quarterly Executive 16(3): 197–213.
Shrivastava S and Shaw JB (2003) Liberating HR through technology. Human Resource
Management 42(3): 201–222.
Snell SA, Pedigo PR and Krawiec GM (1995) Managing the impact of information technology on
human resource management. In: Ferris GR, Rosen SD and Barnum DT (eds) Handbook of
Human Resource Management. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers, pp. 159–174.
Strohmeier S (2007) Research in e-HRM: review and implications. Human Resource Management
Review 17(1): 19–37.
Strohmeier S (2013) Employee relationship management—realizing competitive advantage
through information technology? Human Resource Management Review 23(1): 93–104.
Strohmeier S (2018) Smart HRM—a Delphi study on the application and consequences of the
Internet of Things in Human Resource Management. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management 20(3): 528–543.
Strohmeier 365

Suddaby E (2010) Editor’s comments: construct clarity in theories of management and organiza-
tion. The Academy of Management Review 35(3): 346–357.
Thite M (2019) Electronic/digital HRM: a primer. In: Thite M (ed.) e-HRM: Digital Approaches,
Directions & Applications. New York: Routledge, pp. 1–21.
van Aaken JE (2004) Management research based on the paradigm of design sciences: the quest
for field-tested and grounded technological rules. Journal of Management Studies 41(2):
219–241.
van Kruining I (2017) The dis-app-earance of HRM: impact of digitization on the HRM profes-
sion. In: Bondarouk T, Ruël H and Parry E (eds) Electronic HRM in the Smart Era. Bingley:
Emerald, pp. 311–337.
Vardarlier P (2020) Digital transformation of human resource management: digital applications
and strategic tools in HRM. In: Hacioglu U (ed.) Digital Business Strategies in Blockchain
Ecosystems. Cham: Springer, pp. 239–264.
Vesti H, Nielsen C, Rosenstand CAF, et al. (2017) Structured literature review of disruptive inno-
vation theory within the digital domain. In: ISPIM conference proceedings, Vienna, Austria,
18–21 June 2017.
Vesti H, Rosenstand CAF and Gertsen F (2018) Structured literature review of digital disruption
literature. In: ISPIM conference proceedings, Stockholm, Sweden, 17–20 June 2018.
Vial G (2019) Understanding digital transformation: a review and a research agenda. The Journal
of Strategic Information Systems 28(2): 118–144.
Walker AJ (1980) A brief history of the computer in personnel. Personnel Journal 16: 32–36.
Weber M (1904) Die “Objektivität” sozialwissenschaftlicher und sozialpolitischer Erkenntnis.
Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik 19(1): 22–87.