لخّصلي

خدمة تلخيص النصوص العربية أونلاين،قم بتلخيص نصوصك بضغطة واحدة من خلال هذه الخدمة

نتيجة التلخيص (20%)

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 Makela, 2016) of HRM are
increasingly used. Conceptual components such as "transformation" and even more "disruption" imply substantial changes for HRM, hinting at a clearly considerable importance of these concepts.o The digital transformation of organizations denotes the socio-technical digitalization sub-process of exploiting digitization potentials for strategic organizational
purposes.o The digitalization of organizations denotes the socio-technical process of exploiting digitization potentials for operational and/or strategic organizational
purposes.A first cluster covers concepts grouped around the result of a digital organization:
o The digitization of organizations denotes the technical process of converting
analogue organizational information into digital organizational information for
automated processing.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, librarians, and so on and instead exclusively offers digitized books via the Internet serves as a
simple example of digital transformation. Second, authors use the
concepts in a heterogeneous manner; that is, they use concepts with multiple and sometimes contradictory understandings (e.g. understandings of digital disruption of Larkin,
2017, and Platanou and Makela, 2016).First, authors frequently use the concepts in an implicit manner; that is, they do not offer explicit definitions but rather assume that readers understand the intended meaning (e.g. Bajer, 2017; Larkin, 2017).Third, authors frequently use concepts in a proliferating manner; that is, they use new concepts to denote well-known old phenomena
(e.g. Martini and Cavenago, 2018; Thite, 2019).


النص الأصلي

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 “disruption” imply substantial changes for HRM, hinting at a clearly considerable importance 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 manner; that is, they do not offer explicit definitions but rather assume that readers understand 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 sometimes contradictory understandings (e.g. understandings of digital disruption of Larkin,
2017, and Platanou and Mäkelä, 2016). Third, authors frequently use concepts in a proliferating 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 synonyms 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 clarify 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 phenomenon, 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 accordance with the general digitalization of organizations. Second, there are mutual dependencies 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 dependencies. 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 disruption 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 phenomena (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 digitization,1
digitalization, digital transformation, and the digital disruption of organizations is
developed.
A first clarification implicit in general research refers to the distinction of processand 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, digital 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 digitalization 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 literature, 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 analogous 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 technical 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 disruption 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 certainly highly undesirable. Moreover, disruption emerges based on the activities of external 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 advertising 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 differs 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 strategic 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, librarians, 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 exploiting digitization potentials for operational and/or strategic organizational
purposes.
• The digital transformation of organizations denotes the socio-technical digitalization sub-process of exploiting digitization potentials for strategic organizational
purposes.
• Digital organization denotes the socio-technical result outcome of the digitalization of organizations.


تلخيص النصوص العربية والإنجليزية أونلاين

تلخيص النصوص آلياً

تلخيص النصوص العربية والإنجليزية اليا باستخدام الخوارزميات الإحصائية وترتيب وأهمية الجمل في النص

تحميل التلخيص

يمكنك تحميل ناتج التلخيص بأكثر من صيغة متوفرة مثل PDF أو ملفات Word أو حتي نصوص عادية

رابط دائم

يمكنك مشاركة رابط التلخيص بسهولة حيث يحتفظ الموقع بالتلخيص لإمكانية الإطلاع عليه في أي وقت ومن أي جهاز ماعدا الملخصات الخاصة

مميزات أخري

نعمل علي العديد من الإضافات والمميزات لتسهيل عملية التلخيص وتحسينها


آخر التلخيصات

Les Technologie...

Les Technologie de L’information et de La Communication ont évalué de façon exponentielle surtout da...

في عصر العولمة ...

في عصر العولمة الذي نعيشه، لعبت مواقع التواصل الاجتماعي دورًا محوريًا في تشكيل الوعي الجمعي والثقافي...

يشكل التطرف الن...

يشكل التطرف الناتج عن الانحراف الفكري أزمة حقيقية للفكر، فضلاً عن أزماته الأخرى، إذا تجسد في أرض الو...

تلسكوب الانكسار...

تلسكوب الانكسار (يسمى أيضًا المنكسر) هو نوع من التلسكوب البصري الذي يستخدم العدسة كهدف منه لتكوين صو...

يعني ان ان علي ...

يعني ان ان علي بن ابي طالب رضي عنه هو الذي امر ابا الاسود الدؤلي بوضع قواعد النحو حتى ان النحاك هذه ...

يشهد العالم الم...

يشهد العالم المعاصر تغيراً سريعاً ومتلاحقاً فـى شـتى ميـادين الحياة ، الاقتصاد والإجتماع والسياسة ،...

Christopher Col...

Christopher Columbuswas an Italian explorer and navigator from the Republic of Genoa The name Chri...

converting ther...

converting thermal energy into electrical energy is very important for the world's environment and i...

نتائج التحليل ا...

نتائج التحليل الكيفي لأهداف منهج الأحياء للصف الثالث الثانوي من خلال فحص وتحليل أهداف منهج الأحياء ...

الشخصية الرئيسة...

الشخصية الرئيسة الأخيرة، مصدر القلق الدائم، أوصلتها مراهقتها في تعلقها بمدرسة الرسم في الثانوية، حدا...

51 1- المحاسبيت...

51 1- المحاسبيتعريف الفكر ( يع البد مف تحديد اإلطار الفكراسة أي موضولدرConceptual Framework ) بعناية...

وحيث كان ما تقد...

وحيث كان ما تقدم وكانت هذه المواد تم توريدها لمخازن بموجب سندات الموافقة على استلام المواد ( استلام ...