An integrative review of SHRM research in South Korea: current status and future directions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to determine the current status of strategic human resource management (SHRM) research in the context of Korea as well as to provide specific recommendations for future research. Design/methodology/approach An integrative literature review was performed to aggregate a body of studies in the Korean context. In total, 39 articles were carefully selected for inclusion in the present review. Findings The review demonstrated that prior studies conducted in Korea have examined whether the established relationship between strategic human resource (HR) practices and organizational outcomes has cross-national validity in Korean contexts, the extent to which the established relationship is moderated by contextual factors, as well as whether a combination of strategic HR practices and the congruence of HR practices with other organizational factors affect organizational outcomes. In addition, the review revealed four unique methodological characteristics of Korea-based studies, namely, the extensive use of self-reported questionnaires, personnel in managerial positions serving as the main sources of primary data, secondary data collected by Korean government research bodies being actively dealt with and an awareness of the necessity of a longitudinal design for causal research. Originality/value The present review makes an important contribution to the study of SHRM in general and the strategic human resources management model in Korea in particular. It is clear that more research is required, although it is encouraging to note the quality of prior research concerning Korean contexts and the specific mechanisms by which strategic HR practices influence organizational outcomes. Finally, there is a clear need for future research that explicitly considers employees' perceptions of strategic HR practices and specific contextual factors in Korea, and further, that utilizes more rigorous and diverse research methods to investigate the effectiveness of strategic HR practices in Korea.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".