Managing people with technology A sociomaterial perspective  ACTA WASAENSIA 512 Dina Myllymäki Copyright © University of Vaasa and the copyright holders. ISBN 978-952-395-093-1 (print) 978-952-395-094-8 (online) ISSN 0355-2667 (Acta Wasaensia 512, print) 2323-9123 (Acta Wasaensia 512, online) URN https://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-395-094-8 Hansaprint Oy, Turenki, 2023. ACADEMIC DISSERTATION To be presented, with the permission of the Board of the School of Management of the University of Vaasa, for public examination on the 31st of August, 2023, at noon. Article based dissertation, School of Management, Human Resource Management. Author Dina Myllymäki https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7726-953X Supervisor(s) Professor Adam Smale University of Vaasa, School of Management. Professor Jennie Sumelius Hanken School of Economics, Department of Management and Organization. Custos Professor Adam Smale University of Vaasa, School of Management. Reviewers Professor Astrid Reichel University of Salzburg. Professor Tanya Bondarouk University of Twente, Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences. Opponent Professor Astrid Reichel University of Salzburg https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7726-953X V Tiivistelmä Tämä väitöskirja korostaa digitaalisten teknologioiden disruptiivista vaikutusta organisaatioihin, työn rakenteisiin ja itse työn luonteeseen. Aikaisempi tutkimus on keskittynyt teknologian vaikutuksiin HRM-prosesseihin, mutta ymmärrys teknologian monimutkaisuudesta ja sen vaikutuksesta henkilöstöhallintoon on rajoittunutta. HRM-toimijoiden varsinainen teknologian käyttö jätetään usein huomioimatta, samoin kuin e-HRM-käytänteiden dynaaminen kehittyminen ajan myötä. Tässä väitöskirjassa käytetään sosiomateriaalista näkökulmaa, joka tunnis- taa ihmisen toiminnan, materiaalisten artefaktien ja sosiaalisen kontekstin yhtäläisen merkityksen e-HRM-käytänteiden muodostumisessa ja toisintamises- sa. Sosiomateriaaliseen näkökulmaan lukeutuvien teorioiden mukaan toiminnot nähdään dynaamisina ja tilannesidonnaisina, ja niihin kuuluu ja niitä muodostavat ihmiset, toimet, äänet, eleet, työkalut, ohjelmistot, asiakirjat, infrastruktuuri ja laitteisto. Väitöskirjan keskeinen tavoite on ymmärtää teknologian roolia HRM-käytänteissä ja HRM-toimijoille tuomalla selvyyttä siihen, miten teknologian materiaalisuus, sosiaaliset tapahtumat ja toimijuus kietoutuvat yhteen HRM-toiminnossa. Sosiomateriaalinen näkökulma esitellään ensimmäisessä artikkelissa, jossa koros- tuu toimijuuden, materiaalisten artefaktien ja sosiaalisen kontekstin yhtäläinen merkitys HRM-käytänteiden muovaamisessa. Siinä tunnistetaan materiaalisuu- den kiinteä rooli, kuten digitaaliset artefaktit ja fyysiset tilat, sosiaalisten elementtien järjestämisessä. Toisessa artikkelissa sovelletaan huomiokeskeistä näkökulmaa (eng. attention-based view, ABV) tutkittaessa, miten teknologia vaikuttaa linjaesihenkilöiden huomion kiinnittämiseen HRM-toimijoina etä- suoriutumisenarvioinnissa. Tämä tarjoaa monisäikeisen ymmärryksen huomiosta sekä kognitiivisena että kontekstiriippuvaisena. Kolmannessa artikkelissa käytetään rutiinidynamiikan teoriaa muuttamaan käsitystä HR-rooleista e- HRM:ssä siirtymällä nimellisrooleista rooleihin, jotka saavutetaan rutiinin- omaisten toimien jaksojen kautta. Tämä väitöskirja tarjoaa kolme pääasiallista kontribuutiota HRM-teknologian tutkimukseen. Se (1) teoretisoi henkilöstöhallinnon olevan sosiomateriaalinen toiminto ja osoittaa empiirisesti johtamiskäytänteiden luonteen muodostuvan materiaalisista artefakteista, (2) käsittelee HRM-toimijoiden monimuotoisuuden puutetta kirjallisuudessa korostaen heidän toimijuuttaan teknologian toteuttamisessa, ja (3) tarkastelee HR-rooleja dynaamisesti tuotettuina ja toteutettuina rutiinien sarjoina. Asiasanat: sosiomateriaalisuus, digitalinen HRM, henkilöstöjohtaminen, e-HRM VI Abstract The study highlights the disruptive influence of digital technologies on organizations, work structures, and the nature of work itself. While previous research has focused on the consequences of technology on HRM processes, there are limitations in understanding the complexity of technology and how it shapes HRM processes. The actual usage of technology by HRM actors is often overlooked, as well as the dynamic unfolding of e-HRM practices over time. This thesis adopts the sociomaterial perspective that recognizes the equal importance of human agency, material artifacts and social context in forming and reproducing e-HRM practices. Theories within the sociomaterial perspective view activities as dynamic and situated, which constitute and are constituted by people, actions, voices, gestures, tools, software, documents, infrastructure, hardware and other materiality. The key objective of the dissertation is to understand the role of technology in changing HRM practices and for HRM actors by shedding light on how the materiality of technology, social events, and human agency are intertwined in the HRM practice. The sociomaterial perspective is introduced in Paper 1, emphasizing the equal importance of human agency, material artifacts, and social context in shaping HRM practices. It recognizes the integral role of materiality, such as digital artifacts and physical spaces, in organizing social elements. Paper 2 applies the attention-based view to explore how technology influences the attentional engagement of line managers as HRM actors in remote performance evaluation. This offers a nuanced understanding of attention as both cognitive and context- dependent. In Paper 3, routine dynamics theory is employed to transform the conceptualization of HR roles, shifting from studying nominal roles to roles accomplished through routinized sequences of actions. These theoretical lenses align with the sociomaterial perspective and contribute to our understanding of the transformative impact of technology on HRM practices and the role of HR actors. The dissertation makes three main contributions to the research on HRM technology. It (1) theorizes HRM as sociomaterial practice and shows empirically the emergence nature of management practices around material artifacts, (2) addresses the lack of diversity of HRM actors in the literature, highlighting their agency in the enactment of technology, and (3) examines HR roles as dynamically produced and enacted through patterns of routines. Keywords: sociomateriality, HRM technology, HRM, e-HRM, people management VII ACKNOWLEDGEMENT What a journey! An exciting journey of personal growth. Rewarding journey of professional development. The possibilities for future growth the PhD journey provided me are endless. My achievements would not be possible without people who trusted, challenged, and supported me. I would like to extend my deepest gratitude to my dearest supervisors, Adam Smale and Jennie Sumelius, whose guidance and expertise have been invaluable throughout this journey. Your patience, support, and unwavering belief in my abilities have made this dissertation possible. You were there to guide me through the most demanding academic processes. I am very grateful to Tanya Bondarouk and Astrid Reichel for being the pre- examiners of my dissertation. Your generous feedback and constructive comments are much appreciated. Thank you, Astrid, for acting as an opponent in my defence. I very much looking forward to our conversation. The academic world is open once you show passion and readiness for research. I thank Kristiina Mäkela for her encouragement and for introducing me to Adam and Jennie. I could not wish for a softer landing in academia. Anton Beletskiy, thank you for reading and acting upon emails from strangers. I am also indebted to the brilliant minds of the University of Vaasa and Aalto University faculty members, who have challenged and expanded my knowledge in ways I never thought possible. Dear members of the HRM group of the School of Management, thanks for organizing very needed Doctoral Seminars and commenting on my work, and for your guidance and kindness. I thank people who worked at the Helsinki office of the Vaasa Uni for being terrific colleagues, who made my academic journey safe and cheerful, especially Catharina von Koskull and Jukka Partanen. I thank all Aaltonians at the Department of Management Studies for welcoming me and making my work here joyful, fulfilling, and memorable. You made me feel at home. Warm thanks to Kathrin Sele, my co-author, who gave me the keys to land at Aalto. Your passion for ethnography was contagious, and writing with you is a rewarding experience. I express my gratitude to many individuals with whom I had pleasure to connect, share ideas and energies. Thank you Sniazhana Diduc, Ausrine Silenskyte, Susanna Kultalahti, Rumy Narayan, Olivier Wurtz, Rodrigo Mello, Ulviyya Pekkarinen, Tomi Koljonen, Saija Katila, Alice Wickström, Ana Paula Lafaire, Lina Siltala-Li, Sofia Villo, Iaroslav Kriuchkov, Anne-Sophie Barbe, Emma Sandström, VIII Anastasia Koptsyukh, Karelia Dagnaud, Hanne Savolainen, Riku Reunamäki, Xiaoshi Xu and many others who inspired me, listened to me, argued with me, made me laugh, saw me cry and watch me grow at different stages of the journey. Thank you Hertta Vuorenmaa for conversations about ethnography and your effort in helping me to find case companies. I thank Rebecca Piekkari for the case study course and together with Tiina for the future opportunities that truly excites me. The very special thanks to Kate Pak, Natalia Fey and Laura Urrila- my co-writing community; we all made it to the finish line; it would not be possible without our 45 minutes writing intervals and, most importantly, long breaks in between. I am thankful for two anonymous case companies that opened their doors to me, allowing me to explore their way of organizing, the managers who allowed me to observe their work, and the HR professionals sharing their experiences with me. Thank you for your invaluable contribution to this work. I am grateful for international academic communities, especially e-HRM, the community that listens and welcomes different views and opinions, and all the connections it made possible, with Tanya Boundarouk, Janet Marler, Jeroen Meijerink, Emma Parry, Anna Holm, Markus Ellmer and many others. Thank you for the conversations, constructive feedback, and encouragement. NORD-IB is another community that made the PhD journey fun and brought good friends into my life Natalia Fey, Sara Fraccastoro, Alexander Gorgijevsky, Jan Schmitt and many others. My warm regards to the members of the ex-SMG department at Copenhagen Business School I visited in 2018, especially Dana Minbaeva, whose positive energy and drive for work I admire the most. I would like to express my appreciation to the Kaute Foundation, the Marcus Wallenberg Foundation, the Liikesivistysrahasto, and the Vaasa University Foundation for their financial support playing a crucial role in shaping the success of my project. To my dearest friends and family, who didn't have a clue what I was doing but cheered me anyway, thank you for your unwavering love and encouragement. You have provided me with the occasional reality check during my intense "still studying?" periods. Dear Matti, your belief in me has kept me going; your encouragement, trust, and support helped me build my strength and confidence. I thank my mum for her unconditional love. I thank my in-laws, Arja and Mikko, for being curious about my work and celebrating my small achievements. Hugo and Erik, children and family are often assumed to hinder their mother's career; I might not be high on the career ladders at this moment; you should know it is not IX because of you; it is because I am afraid of heights. As I do my slow and hesitant steps up, I know you are always there to hold the ladders. Love you! I dedicate this thesis to my father. The thought he never finished his thesis motivated me to finish mine for him. I only wish he would live to see this moment. Vantaa, 16.06.2023 XI Contents TIIVISTELMÄ ............................................................................................ V ABSTRACT ............................................................................................. VI ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................ VII 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1 1.1 Background ............................................................................. 1 1.2 Research objectives and research questions ............................. 4 1.3 Theoretical contributions ......................................................... 6 1.4 The structure of the dissertation .............................................. 7 2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ............................................................. 9 2.1 Overview of the e-HRM literature .............................................. 9 2.2 Overview of the sociomaterial perspective ............................. 12 2.3 Overview of the attention-based view ..................................... 14 2.4 Overview of the routine dynamics perspective ....................... 16 3 METHOD ......................................................................................... 18 3.1 Research philosophy .............................................................. 18 3.2 Research approach ................................................................ 20 3.2.1 Case selection ......................................................... 21 3.3 Data Collection ...................................................................... 22 3.3.1 Case study 1: description and data collection .......... 22 3.3.2 Case study 2: description and data collection .......... 24 3.4 Data analysis ......................................................................... 25 3.5 Quality of the research .......................................................... 27 4 SUMMARY OF THE PAPERS ............................................................... 30 4.1 Paper 1. “Beyond the ʽeʼ in e-HRM: Integrating a sociomaterial perspective” ........................................................................... 30 4.2 Paper 2. “Evaluating performance in the context of mobile telework: An attention-based view” ........................................ 31 4.3 Paper 3 “Digital empowerment: a routine dynamics perspective on HR transformation” ........................................................... 33 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ...................................................... 35 5.1 Theoretical contributions ....................................................... 35 5.1.1 Materiality of technology and human agency ........... 35 5.1.2 Actors and their actions .......................................... 37 5.1.3 Dynamic routines and HR role transformation ......... 38 5.2 Limitations and future research agenda ................................. 39 5.3 Practical implications ............................................................. 41 REFERENCES .......................................................................................... 43 XII PUBLICATIONS ...................................................................................... 51 Beyond the ‘e-’ in e-HRM: integrating a sociomaterial perspective .... 51 Evaluating performance in the context of mobile telework: An attention-based view ............................................................. 80 Digital empowerment: a routine dynamics perspective on HR transformation .................................................................... 108 Tables Table 1. Papers comprising this compilation-based dissertation .... 8 Abbreviations HRM Human Resource Management e-HRM Electronic Human Resource Management HR Human Resources ABV Attention-Based View IT Information Technology PE Performance Evaluation ERP systems Enterprise Resource Planning Systems SHR Unit HR in case study 2 OHR Organization-wide HR in case study 2 AI Artificial Technology XIII Publications Myllymäki, D. (2021). Beyond the ‘e-’ in e-HRM: integrating a sociomaterial perspective. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 31, 2563-2591. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2021.1913624. Published by the Taylor and Francis Group. Reprinted with the permission of the Taylor and Francis group. Myllymäki, D., Smale, A., Sumelius, J. Evaluating performance in the context of mobile telework: An attention-based view. [Re-submitted for revision to the International Journal of Human Resource Management. A previous version of the paper was presented at the 38th EGOS Colloquium in Vienna, Austria, 2022.] Myllymäki, D., Sele, K. Digital empowerment: a routine dynamics perspective on HR transformation. [Current paper has been presented at 40th European Group of Organizational Studies Colloquium, 2023, in Italy, Cagliari and Academy of Management Annual Meeting, 2023, in Boston, US.] https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2021.1913624 1 INTRODUCTION The global market for human resource management (HRM) technology is reportedly growing at a fast pace and was valued at 24 billion USD in 2021 (SkyQuest Technology Consulting, 2022). Technological innovation in the field of HRM continues to grow with the goal of improving efficiency, cutting costs per employee and increasing the value of the business. HRM technology has become an important tool for organizations through which to gather employee data that can be used for a variety of purposes, for example to enable better managerial decision-making or improve the employee work experience. Digitalized HRM practices such as remote performance monitoring and online learning, challenge traditional ideas that build on the assumption that people management takes place in one common space, such as an office or a manufacturing floor, as opposed to an increasingly hybrid type of workplace in which employees and managers are not co-located. In this dissertation, I examine how digitalized HRM practices evolve around technology, and aim to deepen our understanding of this phenomenon by drawing on a variety of theoretical perspectives and studying it in two different empirical contexts. 1.1 Background The rapid development of digital technologies and the integration of independent software has caused organizational disruption through a myriad of new possibilities it brings about for interactions between people and machines, data sourcing and mining, and the automation of various business processes. It influences the way in which people approach work, the structure of work, and the nature of work itself (Frey & Osborn, 2017; Colbert et al., 2016). As a result, the approach to managing people has undergone, and continues to undergo, a transformation (Loebbecke & Picot, 2015; Colbert et al., 2016; Kane et al., 2015). In light of this, the role of the HR function in organizations is being played out in fresh colors, based on visions of HR professionals and middle managers as change agents for digital transformation. The widespread technological development and popularization of technological solutions for people management purposes has, already for some time, interested researchers who have focused on examining the effects of technology on organizations and different organizational actors’ work. Research on the role of technology in HRM, commonly referred to as electronic HRM (e-HRM), has focused on the link between technology and ‘doing HRM’ (Bondarouk & Ruël, 2 Acta Wasaensia 2009), more specifically examining technology as a tool for achieving increased HRM efficiency (Bell et al. 2006; Bondarouk & Ruël, 2013; Parry & Tyson, 2011), identifying the consequences of e-HRM application (Ruël et al., 2004; Lepak & Snell, 1998; Parry & Tyson, 2011; Stone et al., 2015; Beulen, 2009), and uncovering contingency factors that support or inhibit the effective adoption of e-HRM (Voermans & van Veldhoven, 2007; Heikkilä & Smale, 2011; Panayotopoulou et al., 2010; Bondarouk et al., 2017). Whilst this body of work on the consequences of technology and factors of successful adoption is useful, the transformative power of technology to change organizations and human behavior has largely been taken for granted. The e-HRM field has moved towards a deeper understanding of the adoption stage of technology implementation, theorizing about the variety of factors that undermine adoption, but forgoing an examination of the actual use of technology and the organizational practices that form around its use. A recent examination of the e- HRM literature (Myllymäki, 2021) highlights a prevalent dichotomy in which research tends to be overly deterministic or voluntarist in nature. and calls for a more nuanced balance of the two. In this dissertation I seek to address the limitations imposed by these extremes, which I discuss in what follows. First, despite being a primary concept of e-HRM research, technology often remains a ‘black box’ (Ellmer & Reichel, 2018), playing a nominal role in empirical studies. Technology is often conceptualized at the macro-level (Myllymäki, 2021) and its potential to bring about change in organizations and human behaviour is largely taken for granted. Assuming the role of humans as functional, who follow patterns established by technology, research within the e-HRM field has tended to adopt a determinist view of technology (Marler & Fisher, 2013; Ellmer & Reichel, 2018) when examining the consequences of the implementation of HRM technology for HRM processes and HR professionals. As a result, the current accumulated body of knowledge within the e-HRM field have not been able to capture fully the complexity of technology, its materiality, its embeddedness in social processes and the ways in which technology contributes to producing outcomes for HRM. Second, the actual day-to-day use of technology by HRM actors is overlooked in the e-HRM literature. Based on previous e-HRM research we know that HR actors who directly use technology are responsible for its level of adoption (Bell et al., 2006; Stone & Lukaszewski, 2009; Wiblen, 2016; Bondarouk et al., 2017) and, consequently, the intended results of technology implementation. While we know that users find some functions useful and easy to use and others difficult and not as helpful (Heikkilä & Smale, 2011), we know little about how HRM actors actually Acta Wasaensia 3 respond to shifts in their work due to technology implementation, and how they bring functions of technology into use and in what form. Such knowledge can be beneficial for understanding what technology may afford for actors, as well as how technology may constrain their efforts to do their work effectively. This requires us to shift attention from actors’ unlimited possibilities to act despite technological constraints (voluntarism), towards their agentic power in relation to technology and its constraints (Orlikowski & Scott, 2008). Studies like those by Francis et al. (2014) and Tansley et al. (2013) offer a critical view of HRM practices by examining the discourse around technology and identity constructions. However, these studies equate e-HRM with HRM processes, disregarding the material components involved in the implementation of e-HRM and its role in the focal processes. Moreover, thus far e-HRM research has largely focused on end users of the system and HR professionals in particular, while wider groups of actors are neglected (Bondarouk & Ruël, 2013; Perry & Kulik, 2008). For instance, our understanding of how line managers carry out their HRM responsibilities in practice, and how they use technology to perform their core tasks in HRM needs more attention. Third, research on e-HRM has been predominantly concerned with the fixed, formal and intended e-HRM practices organizations have or intend to implement, rather than on how these practices dynamically unfold overtime. The literature treats e-HRM practices as predefined and inscribed in HRM technology (Myllymäki, 2021; Marler & Fisher, 2013). Becoming standardized with the help of technology, e-HRM practices are often considered as a way to reaching strategic HRM goals (Marler & Fisher, 2013), just as the ‘best practice’ approach leads to improved organizational performance in the strategic HRM literature (Becker & Huselid, 2006). Similarly, the literature treats HR roles as prescriptive and normative (Björkman et al., 2015), often assuming the power of technology to transform HR roles through the automation of administrative tasks that free up time for HR professionals to provide valuable insights for business (Gardner, Lepak, & Bartol, 2003; Marler & Parry, 2016; Bondarouk, Parry, & Furtmueller, 2017). Although such a conceptualization can be helpful, there are better alternative starting points that allow us to study how e-HRM practices and HR roles emerge and become established, or what changes in activities the automation of HRM practices entail for the actors. Focusing on dynamic and situated HRM means focusing on actors and their activities in connection to technology, its materiality and social processes. This requires us to shift our attention to how technology is enacted and how such enactment produces new outcomes for organizations and organizational actors. 4 Acta Wasaensia I address the above-mentioned limitations by drawing on theories from the neighboring fields of organization studies and information technology. In Paper 1, I introduce the sociomaterial perspective that recognizes the equal importance of human agency, material artefacts and social context – thus integrating both deterministic and voluntarist approaches – in the formation and reproduction of HRM practices. Sociomateriality advances a conceptualization of technology that emphasizes “materiality as integral to human activities and relations” (Orlikowski & Scott, 2008: p.438). It suggests that even though social elements such as language or roles are essential to organizing, materiality, such as digital artefacts, material objects or physical spaces are integral parts of those social elements. Theories within the sociomaterial perspective view activities as dynamic and situated, which constitute and are constituted by people, actions, voices, gestures, tools, software, documents, infrastructure, and hardware (Orlikowski, 2016; Barley & Kunda, 2001). In Paper 2, I apply the attention-based view (ABV) to examine how technology shapes the attentional engagement of line managers as HRM actors in remote performance evaluation, extending previous research by providing a more nuanced view of attention as something not entirely cognitive, but also context- dependent. And in Paper 3, I draw upon routine dynamics theory to transform our conceptualization of HR roles in e-HRM from nominal towards roles that are accomplished through the routinized sequence of actions. These two theoretical lenses align with the fundamental beliefs of the sociomaterial perspective and hold significant promise in expanding our understanding of the effect of technology on HRM practices and the role of HR actors by moving away from evaluating the success of e-HRM as the gap between actual and intended practices, towards an exploration of emergent practices conceptualized as HRM activities. 1.2 Research objectives and research questions The key objective of the dissertation is to deepen our understanding of the role of technology in HRM practice and for HRM actors, by shedding light on the intertwinement of actor-centric, social processes and material artefacts in the practice of e-HRM. This objective can be formulated as the following research question: How is HRM as a sociomaterial practice evolving in interaction with digital technology? This overarching research question is addressed through three papers that comprise this compilation-based dissertation. Acta Wasaensia 5 In Paper 1, based on a comprehensive review of the existing e-HRM literature, the objective was to explore the potential of the sociomaterial perspective in terms of how it can improve our conceptualization and empirical examination of e-HRM. The review juxtaposes existing perspectives within the e-HRM literature with that of the sociomaterial perspective to illustrate the kinds of complementary theoretical and conceptual tools that can be applied to address current limitations in our understanding of the impact of e-HRM. Hence, the paper aims to answer the following question: 1. How can the sociomaterial perspective improve our conceptualization of technology, actors and practices in e-HRM research, and how could this be advanced in a future research agenda? In Paper 2, the objective was to understand empirically the entanglements of material artefacts and social processes in performance evaluation – a core HRM practice carried out by line managers. Adopting an ABV, the paper attempts to shed light on the role of technology in line managers’ performance evaluation of mobile teleworkers, elaborating on the kinds of attentional stimuli that are generated by technology as part of the broader sociomaterial work environment, and how these, together with the attentional perspectives of the manager, influence attentional engagement. This paper thus focuses on the following research question: 2. How do technology and social events as attentional stimuli on the one hand, and individual attentional perspectives, on the other, interact to shape the attentional engagement of line managers in the practice of performance evaluation? Finally, the objective of Paper 3 was to explore how technology enables the transformation of HR professional roles. Applying routine dynamics perspective, the paper aims to deepen our understanding of transforming HR roles as practiced through patterned routinized activities, rooted in knowledge, and emerging around active implementation and use of technology. This paper attempts to answer the following research question: 3. How do HRM technologies change HR routines and impact HR professionals’ roles? 6 Acta Wasaensia 1.3 Theoretical contributions This dissertation intends to make scientific contributions to e-HRM research in three main ways. First, the adoption of a sociomaterial perspective serves to advance our understanding of the role of technology in terms of its social and material properties in HRM. I lay the ground for empirical research within the sociomaterial perspective by examining the existing e-HRM literature with a focus on highlighting the underlying assumptions of the e-HRM literature about technology, actors, and practices that potentially influence how technological implementation has been studied and theorized in the organizational context. The dissertation offers the sociomaterial perspective as a way to respond to calls for acknowledging the materiality of technology and the agency of human actors as equally important for the formation of HRM practices with a focus on its dynamic nature. Sociomateriality also offers the notion of technology as a material artefact deeply embedded in those practices, thus impacting the way in which HRM practice and process play out. According to this view, HRM is accomplished in situ though the encounter of material features of technology and individuals engaging with them. Second, addressing the lack of diversity of actors represented in the e-HRM literature and their use of technology, the dissertation brings HR professionals and line managers and their activities into empirical research, theorizing about them as main actors of HRM possessing agency to enact, reproduce or change HRM practices. By focusing on what line managers and HR professionals do in patterned ways, I am able to theorize about and empirically examine practices that have formed around technology, as well as how the social and material orders adjust or configure those practices. For example, Paper 2 theorizes about performance evaluation as an attentional practice of technology and examines the attentional structures that define where managers engage their attention to evaluate the work of their mobile teleworking subordinates. The paper shows how stimuli can be both material and social, and how individual managerial perspectives can be complex and based both on own identity perceptions as well as spatial-material orientations. Third, the dissertation contributes to the discussion on the impact of technology for the transformation of the role of HR that is topical within the e-HRM literature, as well as the HRM literature more generally. Responding to calls to focus on actual instead of intended and desired HRM opened up possibilities to show how the roles of HR professionals emerge and change around the active use of Acta Wasaensia 7 technology. By applying a routine dynamics perspective, the dissertation sheds light on the microprocesses that occur when an organization attempts to transform its HR function into a strategic one with the help of technology. The empirical focus of the routine dynamics perspective on actions and patterned routinized activities illustrates how the practicing of HRM changes in situ, and how material, social and human agencies are entangled in the practicing of HRM. For example, Paper 3 focuses on the role of HR administrative personnel in the enactment of technology, and how it empowered them. 1.4 The structure of the dissertation The dissertation is structured into four main sections (Table 1). Following this introduction, I will provide a brief overview of the e-HRM literature, its assumptions about technology and actors being on two extremes of determinism and voluntarism. I then briefly introduce the sociomaterial perspective, attention- based view and routine dynamics theory that I have applied in my work to address the objectives of the dissertation. Section 3 discusses the methodology of the dissertation in detail, and Section 4 provides brief summaries of the three papers and outlines their key findings. Finally, in the last Section 5, I discuss the contributions of my dissertation in connection with existing work in the field of e- HRM, followed by conclusions, limitations of the dissertation and future research avenues. 8 Acta Wasaensia Table 1. Papers comprising this compilation-based dissertation Paper 1 Paper 2 Paper 3 Title "Beyond the ‘e’ in e-HRM research: integrating a sociomaterial perspective" “Evaluating performance in the context of mobile telework: an attention-based view” “Digital empowerment: a routine dynamics perspective on HR transformation” Research questions How can concepts from theories grounded in sociomateriality provide new, complementary ways to explain the interplay between technology, actors and HRM practices? How do technology and social events as attentional stimuli on the one hand, and individual attentional perspectives, on the other, interact to shape the attentional engagement of line managers in performance evaluation? How do HRM technologies change HR routines and impact HR professionals’ roles? Theoretical perspective Sociomaterial perspective Attention-based view Routine dynamics perspective Research design Conceptual: literature review Empirical: single in-depth qualitative case study Empirical: single in-depth qualitative case study Acta Wasaensia 9 2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 2.1 Overview of the e-HRM literature For the purpose of this dissertation, the concept of e-HRM is defined as follows: […] an umbrella term covering all possible integration mechanisms and contents between HRM and Information Technologies aiming at creating value within and across organisations for targeted employees and management. Bondarouk and Ruël (2009: 507). This definition highlights the application of technology to support different kinds of HRM tasks, and stresses four critical aspects: technology, actors, HRM practices and the consequences of technology implementation. These aspects are critical to nearly all studies on the intersection of technology and organization studies (Orlikowski & Barley, 2001). Research in this area is diverse, and it is difficult to discern a clear theoretical base for e-HRM (Strohmeier, 2009; Marler & Fisher, 2013; Bondarouk et al., 2017). Existing work can be divided into two main streams: i) research focusing on the consequences of implementing e-HRM; and ii) research focusing on factors/obstacles in the implementation of digital tools. Studies of the consequences of e-HRM distinguish between three kinds of effects: operational, relational, and transformational (Lepak and Snell, 1998; Ruël et al., 2004). First, operational effects are improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of HRM processes (Ruël et al., 2004). The underlying idea is that technology reduces time required for HRM tasks through the automation. Decreased amounts of administrative work, and increased process speed are commonly perceived as benefits of introducing e-HRM (Parry & Tyson, 2011). Second, relational effects refer to the impact on networks of HR professionals, managers, employees, and external agents. Delivering HR information remotely, with the help of technology, allows line managers to execute HRM tasks on their own, and can improve communication between employees, managers, HR and external service providers (Lepak & Snell, 1998), the accuracy of information and simplification of processes (Gardner et al., 2003). And third, the transformational effects of e-HRM drive HR towards a more strategic role. A frequent assumption in e-HRM research is that time freed up for HR professionals as a result of implementing e-HRM is redirected to more strategic tasks. 10 Acta Wasaensia Two problems repeatedly cited in existing e-HRM literature include the lack of consistency in the findings of empirical studies on e-HRM, and the absence of a general theoretical framework of factors affecting the adoption and consequences of e-HRM (Strohmeier, 2007; Bondarouk et al., 2017). While the value of striving to develop a comprehensive framework of influencing factors can be debated, the inconsistency of empirical findings about the impact of technology on organizations is interesting as it directs our attention to how technology is conceptualized in e-HRM research. Technology is frequently regarded as an entity that conducts organizational processes, and human actions can either be determined by or determine established e-processes. This line of thinking raises questions about interdependence - the dominant influence of either technology or humans - and further enhances our comprehension of technology as distinct from organizations and individuals. While the literature on e-HRM does not offer an in-depth discussion about technology itself, it does compare the organizational motives for implementing e- HRM with the outcomes: what the company expects from the technology and what it gets (Parry & Tyson, 2011). Being portrayed as a ‘tool’, e-HRM impacts, influences, or changes organizational HRM processes, the role of HR in the organization, and other HRM activities. The e-HRM literature links abstract e- HRM ‘tools’ to increased productivity (Ruël et al., 2007; Ruël et al., 2004; Gardner et al., 2003; Parry & Tyson, 2011), improved information sharing (Parry & Tyson, 2011; Ruël et al, 2004), and improved HR service (Voermans & van Veldhoven, 2006, Lepak & Snell, 1998, Ruël et al, 2004). In the majority of the studies, e-HRM is a tool to substitute routinized manual work (Bondarouk & Ruël, 2013; Parry, 2011; Gardner et al., 2003; Lepak & Snell, 1998). This deterministic view of technology dominates the research on e-HRM and influences the way in which research has been conducted, the questions that have been asked and the conclusions that have been drawn (Marler & Fisher, 2013; Strohmeier, 2007). Typically, research has built arguments on the premise that e- HRM defines processes that employee-users have no other choice but to follow. Similarly, it is assumed that technological solutions for HRM are based on ‘best practices’ (Huselid, 1995) and hence, are strongly associated with the strategic HRM literature (Marler & Parry, 2016). Conceptual work in e-HRM about the ongoing changes due to digitalization and how things should be, is written in a positivistic manner. This notwithstanding, empirical research has produced ambiguous conclusions about the influence of e-HRM. In light of the conflicting results about the effect of technology on the HR function and its role in organizations, e-HRM research has sought a deeper understanding Acta Wasaensia 11 of the challenges linked to the successful adoption of technology. It has found some of the answers in the users, their competencies and skills in using technology, and their acceptance of it. Among the key factors examined are the engagement of the users, training (Parry & Tyson, 2011; Bell et al., 2006), attitudes towards e-HRM (Voermans & van Veldhoven, 2007), and age and gender (Gardner et al., 2003). Bell et al. (2006) is an example of a study that discusses the need for HR to develop skills and competencies to implement e-HRM successfully and, in particular, to gain a strategic role within the organization. Based on interviews with HR representatives, Bell et al. (2006) suggest three knowledge areas that HR professionals need to develop further: knowledge of the business, change management, and technology expertise. Similarly, Parry and Tyson (2011) suggest that a lack of necessary skills among HR personnel hinders the implementation of new technology, as does a lack of training for users and their actual engagement with the system. Gardner et al. (2003) explore the moderating effects of HR professionals, functional orientation, and generalist or functional HR specialists on the successful adoption of e-HRM systems. Other e-HRM studies do not concentrate on who the users are, but on their behavior as users, the use or non-use of technology, the frequency of use (Bondarouk et al., 2017), and users supporting e-HRM (Ruël et al., 2007). The Technology Acceptance Model and its variations have influenced e-HRM studies in explaining user behavior (Heikkila & Smale, 2011; Voermans & van Veldhoven, 2007). TAM assumes that the user’s perceptions of the usefulness and ease of use of IT are factors that influence to what extent the implemented system is used. While the TAM model helps to explain the motivation for accepting or rejecting the use of IT, it does not adequately capture the complexity of social processes underlying IT implementation. It simplifies the context in which e-HRM operates by focusing only on users and their perceptions. Overall, the e-HRM literature has come up against difficulties in determining the circumstances where technological outcomes become positive and intended, acknowledging that this is a complex phenomenon. This complexity stems from a range of social activities, perceptions, motivations, and organizational internal and external factors (Marler & Parry, 2016). In response to the e-HRM field’s continued search for appropriate theoretical frameworks (Strohmeier, 2007; Bondarouk & Brewster, 2016; Marler & Fisher, 2013), I draw upon the sociomaterial perspective (Orlikowski & Scott, 2008; Leonardi, 2013), which provides a different basis upon which to study and theorize about the consequences of technology, HRM practices, actors and technology comprising those practices. I also draw upon the attention-based view and routine dynamics perspective that informed my empirical studies, in which where I explore how 12 Acta Wasaensia technology influences line managers’ performance evaluation in practice, and the role of HR professionals in the organization, respectively. 2.2 Overview of the sociomaterial perspective Studies in the area of information systems and organizations view technology as a complex artefact that is both material and social by nature (Orlikowski & Scott, 2008; Leonardi, 2013; Cecez-Kecmanovic et al., 2014). Orlikowski and Scott (2008) refer to sociomateriality to introduce the notion of materiality of technology, its technical structures, and the importance of examining how materiality (e.g., particular software for recruitment) is intrinsic to everyday organizational/human activities (e.g., recruitment practices). The starting point of sociomateriality is not how technology influences humans, but rather how materiality is inherently present in our everyday activities. There is no one sociomaterial theory, instead there is a range of theories that recognize the entanglement of the material and social but differ in terms of their ontological assumptions (Leonardi, 2013). The core dilemma is whether the social world is constitutive of pre-existing entities (substantivism) or ever-evolving relationships (relational thinking) (Embrayer, 1997). The former, often referred to as a critical realist philosophical stance (Boudreau & Robey, 2005; Bygstad et al, 2016), centers on theorizing the material and its constitutive role in organizing. Material objects are viewed as part of the organizational structure, and both objects and structure can afford or constrain human action. Structuration theories, duality of technology and socio-technical systems are holistic theories where structures or social systems are sources of action. The human subject is at the center of actions. Agency is defined as the capacity to act, and all actions involve motivation, reflection and rationalization which are exclusively human intentions but interconnected with other entities, e.g. material properties of technology stand in the way of humans when they work to achieve their goals (Boudreau & Robey, 2005). Interaction between agency and the system is explained through the concept of affordance (Gibson, 1979). Affordance refers to something in the environment, e.g. social structures or organizations, that contributes to the interaction between that environment and agency. Agency and affordance are relational concepts which means affordance can only exist in the interaction of human and material entities. Affordance cannot exist without human agency because even if environments enable or constrain, humans still have the power to choose how to behave, producing anticipated or novel outcomes. Following this, affordance is perceived Acta Wasaensia 13 by human agents. In substantivism, the sociomaterial perspective provides the means to focus on human actors and how they exercise their agency with regards to constraining and enabling the effect of sociomaterial practices. The analytical focus of sociomaterial studies is on practice that is often defined as “embodied, materially mediated arrays of human activity centrally organized around shared practical understandings” (Schatzki, 2001: p.2). Reproduced practices that are shared among individuals can create significant consequences for organizational processes and organizing in general. Accordingly, it is through practice that material agency and human agency gets entangled to produce realities as we know them. The key foundation of relational ontology is that actions are performative by nature. This applies not only to language in the form of words and sentences (Butler, 1993), but is also true for material artefacts such as technology, buildings and human bodies, which are fully entangled with social elements and are essential for enactment. Enactment refers to the use of material artefacts to produce outcomes (Leonardi & Barley, 2010). When individuals employ technology with a particular purpose, they enact it through their interaction with it, and the result of such enactment is inherently uncertain due to the emergence of unpredictable and novel patterns. Organizations, whether seen as a bundle of practices, nets of activities or structural arrangements, constantly reproduce themselves in action. Actions drive change and stability, and are the primary focus of analysis in sociomaterial theories. This dissertation argues that a sociomaterial perspective has potential to deepen our understanding of the complexity of technology and its implementation in organizational settings. It allows us to think about the consequences of technology implementation for different outcomes, for example emergent ones. It provides a means to think of a variety of concepts, e.g. power or identity, as dynamic relationships, which are produced or reproduced around technology. A sociomaterial perspective has potential to extend the literature on e-HRM by including a focus on concepts such as affordance and enactment, human and material agency, and situated and dynamic HRM practices, which help to further deepen our understanding and theorization of the complex relationships between technology, human actors and social, contextual elements, and provide complementary explanations regarding the consequences of introducing HRM technology. Sociomateriality recognizes technology as a complex artefact in which human and material are equally important for the emergence of new HRM practices. Moreover, the sociomaterial perspective implies focusing on situated activities, understanding their patterns and considering the sociomaterial environment as a source of the observed activities. 14 Acta Wasaensia 2.3 Overview of the attention-based view The attention-based view (ABV) was chosen as a theoretical lens in Paper 2 to help shed light on the role of technology in performance evaluation (PE). Adopting a sociomaterial view on technology, the focus was on attention as something line managers do. Conceptualizing performance evaluation as a continuous process of sustaining managerial attention on specific issues that inform their evaluation judgments, ABV was applied to examine attentional stimuli generated by technology as part of the broader socio-technical work environment, and how these combined with attentional perspectives of managers to influence what they direct their time, energy and effort on when evaluating the performance of their subordinates. Traditionally, attention is understood as a self-controlled cognitive process central to planning, problem-solving and decision-making processes. Within the frame of the behavioral theory of the firm, attention research has focused explicitly on executives and their ability to control and sustain their attention on organizational issues, as well as their actions to solve them. While organizational outcomes are, at least partly, the result of the selective attention of executives, more than cognitive processes alone is needed to explain how and why attention is directed towards some issues rather than others. The ABV (Ocasio, 1997), addresses the unidirectional attention problem by explaining attention as a multilevel process shaped by individuals, organizations and the environment. The underlying idea is that the issues decision-makers focus their attention on depends on the particular context that they find themselves in. The latter depends on how a firm’s social and material structures (rules, resources and relationships) regulate and control the distribution of the issues. Hence, in ABV, attention is situated and distributed. A central concept in ABV is attentional engagement – the sustained allocation of cognitive resources, i.e. time, energy, and effort to guide problem-solving, planning, decision-making and sense-making (Ocasio, 2011). The problem of variety, volume and fragmentation of attentional stimuli means that individuals need to balance between them. Attentional engagement is understood as the synthesis of top-down cognitive processes (attentional perspective) and bottom- up stimuli that trigger attention (attentional stimuli) (Ocasio, 2011). Attentional perspectives are the structures that generate awareness and focus (Nicolini & Korica, 2021). Individuals can have multiple competing or conflicting attentional perspectives, defined by individual’s perceived identities, occupational role, personal and organizational goals, experience, position in the organizational hierarchy and other contextual specifics (Ocasio, 2011). Attentional stimuli are external triggers (data, direct observations, email, weekly goals, requests, etc.) that Acta Wasaensia 15 are part of a situated environment where the action of paying attention to some issues takes place. Various scholars have applied ABV to explain the strategy making process (Joseph & Ocasio, 2012; Joseph & Wilson, 2018), strategic planning (Ketokivi & Castaner, 2004), relationships between headquarter firms and their subsidiaries in the IB field (Ambos & Birkinshaw, 2010) among others. The structural determinants of attention in ABV and situated decision-making became the focus of this research as it provided a means to explain how the attention of individuals in the firm comes into interaction with the firm’s social structures, specifically organizational control mechanisms. Empirical studies applying ABV started to extend and develop the theory. For example, Ocasio, Laamanen and Vaara (2018: 156) argued for deeper consideration of the “structure and role of communication channels as a means to distribute organizational attention.” Nicolini and Korica (2021) contributed to ABV by an in-depth understanding of attentional engagement of firms’ executives by studying the everyday practice of executives and arguing that their attentional engagement is the result of not only social structures or communication channels but also of material and other contextual social elements. Attention as practice is the result of applying the practice lens when studying managers’ attention. Social practices are about “routinized materially mediated regimes of doing, saying, knowing and relating as building blocks of understanding organizational phenomena.” (Nicolini & Korica, 2021: 5) The practice lens sees attention as mundane sociomaterial activity in situ, suggesting that attention is affected and structured by the managers’ environment. This includes objects surrounding managers and their interactional order. This dissertation finds the latter development of ABV as applicable for explaining how managers choose to attend to specific issues in performance evaluation practice considering the variety and volume of the available information, some of which generated by technology. In applying the ABV, the dissertation contributes to the e-HRM literature by shedding light on the role of technology in HRM practice, responding to the need for actor-centric research that HRM and e-HRM in particular has been lacking. Focusing on performance evaluation as a specific practice, the study in Paper 2 examines the situated activities of line managers and their experiences with technology in relation to other attentional stimuli and their own attentional perspectives. Looking at the everyday situated activities of managers through the prism of their attentional engagement allows us to shed light and explain how managers enact technology in the context of a core HRM practice such as performance evaluation. 16 Acta Wasaensia 2.4 Overview of the routine dynamics perspective In Paper 3, the focus is on how HR professionals become strategic via re- organizing HR into administrative and strategic functions with the help of technology. Adopting a routine dynamics lens (Feldman & Pentland, 2003; Feldman et al. 2016) allowed us to capture actions of HR professionals in-situ, and use the actions as micro-foundations to explain the macro-level phenomenon of ‘becoming a strategic HR partner’. The routine dynamics provides a conceptual tool for defining professional roles as something people do in patterned ways, and studying the roles in relation to other roles, which we do in Paper 3 to show details of unseen dynamic and complex processes behind the reorganizing. Defined as “repetitive, recognizable patterns of interdependent actions, carried out by multiple actors”, routines are considered inherently dynamic (Feldman & Pentland, 2003: 95) and consequential for organizational processes (Feldman & Orlikowski, 2011). Feldman and Pentland (2003) describe routines as a recursive cycle of performative aspects (one-time performances in specific situations) and ostensive aspects (patterned performance). Routines are not considered as building blocks of capabilities that can be moved, transferred or adapted across firms (Parmigiani & Howard-Grenville, 2011), but rather as dynamically produced and reproduced patterns of actions that are highly situative and dynamic. Actions refer to steps in a process of accomplishing work tasks, such as making employment contracts, paying invoices, ordering office supplies, etc. Actions are the foundation of any organizational routines: if actions follow one another in recognizable and repetitive patterns, routine is performed (Feldman and Pentland, 2003). Actions are in the foreground of routine dynamics and constitute social order, hence they are the unit of observation, while patterns of actions are units of analysis (Feldman et al., 2016). Analyzing patterns of actions helps to improve the understanding of how routines and actions within routines are related to each other, enacting a variety of sequences (Spee et al., 2016) entailing multiple actions and actants, that create variations in the routines (Sele & Grand, 2016). Other core observations of the routine dynamics view include that of are actors as knowledgeable and reflective. While actions are the main object of observation, there can be no actions without the actors. However, putting actions in the foreground allows researchers to remain open about the source of the routine, which can be human or non-human. As we often think of actors as humans, the word ‘actant’ is used to define human, non-human actors or often it is entanglement of both. Acta Wasaensia 17 Routines take effort to be accomplished, moreover sustaining the same patterns of actions requires more effort than to perform an accidental action (Pentland & Rueter, 1994). Kho and Spee (2021) connect not just effortful but skillful accomplishment of routines to becoming and doing within professions. Through the knowledge and expertise that people apply at work, they play a role that connects them to specific professions. hence, the dynamic of routines is especially useful for providing us with novel insights for a better understanding of HR professional roles by reconceptualizing them as unfolding in the process of accomplishing tasks and applying relevant expertise. The routine dynamics perspective acknowledges the importance of material artefacts for forming routines. On the one hand, material artefacts such as technology can be part of the external background where technology sets up the frames for performing one’s work, i.e. the standard operating procedures; people establish routines around artefacts, by complying to standard routines and finding ways to avoid the compliance. On the other hand, artefacts and actors are mutually constitutive of actions, thus routines are sociomaterial ensembles, comprising bundles of actions and artefacts. For example, Spee at al. (2016) show how a ratings sheet as an artefact is the core of the insurance team routine that allows them to make changes to deviate from the sequence of actions depending on the outcome it creates. D’Adderio (2011) argues that while artefacts are not routines in themselves, they are core to routines in that they coevolve “through being involved in performative struggles among conflicting and complementary organizational agencies” (p 208). Artefacts contribute to forming routines by at least orienting the actions of professionals based on the job they do, be it ERP systems, check-lists or contract templates. The routine dynamics view contributes to the e-HRM literature by shifting focus from studying normative and static HR roles towards a more dynamic conceptualization of roles defined by the “patterned ways in which people play them” (Barley, 2015: 6). HR roles are part of organizational work systems, and relational to roles played by other occupational groups as well as different groups within HR. Instead of conceptualizing HR roles as formal roles and statuses, it is possible to look deeper at how HR roles are formed through HR actors’ repetitive and shared activities, which in turn changes our focus from status to the underlying conditions and mechanisms of the change. Specifically, this raises questions about the ways in which HR professionals construct new routines involving HRM technology within organizations, the production of power and identity in HRM activities, and the alignment of HR professionals’ activities with those of line managers, employees, and other occupational groups within the organization. 18 Acta Wasaensia 3 METHOD Empirical Papers 2 and 3 of this dissertation adopt a case study approach, using ethnographic methods to examine how HRM as a sociomaterial practice evolves in interaction with digital technology. The empirical parts of the dissertation are based on two different data sets collected in 2018 and 2021 respectively. Despite being different data sets, I used similar qualitative research methods such as shadowing, semi-structured interviews, observations and internal organizational documents. In the following sections, I describe the research design and methods of this dissertation in detail. Specifically, I motivate the single case study methodology, explain the research settings and company selection, and describe the data collection and analysis techniques applied. 3.1 Research philosophy The choice of theoretical lenses has influenced the choice of research strategy, which together have been influenced by the philosophical assumptions that I hold about reality and our knowledge of it, i.e. “what is real, what can be known and how facts can be faithfully rendered” (Miles & Huberman, 1994: 4). To address these questions, in what follows, I discuss the dissertation’s ontological, epistemological and methodological foundations. The sociomaterial view situates my work on the spectrum of voluntarism vs. determinism (Orlikowski & Scott, 2008; Strohmeier, 2009) and relativism vs. substantivism debates (Emirbayer, 1997, Leonardi, 2013). Voluntarism takes a stance that humans have agency, i.e. an ability to act according to ‘free will’, meaning they can shape reality according to their goals and interests. Determinism, on the contrary, holds that human actions are caused by technological, cultural, social and other forces external and independent of our behavior. The sociomaterial perspective makes calls for research to avoid falling into the extremes of voluntarism and determinism (Orlikowski & Scott, 2008). Instead, it advocates an equal emphasis on agency and materiality when studying the impact of technology on the phenomenon in focus. Taking both into account means acknowledging that they are constitutive of each other. Therefore, one should pay close attention to what technology allows users to do, what it does not allow for, and how actors avoid technology to fulfil their interests and goals. It requires researchers to understand how technology with its material features, gets enacted and becomes entangled in people’s everyday work practices (Orlikowski & Scott, 2008; Leonardi, 2013; Cecez-Kecmanovic et al., 2014; Feldman & Orlikowski, 2011). Acta Wasaensia 19 The ontological debate between relativism and substantivism (Leonardi, 2013), i.e. whether social and material properties exist as separate entities or not is also a key issue in the context of the sociomaterial view. Relativists argue that everything exists in relation to each other; human beings and material things are constantly performed and brought into being through relations (Emirbayer, 1997). Substantivists (Leonardi, 2013; Mutch, 2013) argue that substances such as human beings, material artefacts and other things exist in separation from each other as self-contained entities that interact and affect each other when placed together. The chosen ontological stance influences the interpretation of the data, for example how are sources of actions are identified: as sociomaterial structures (substantivism) or as sociomaterial shared practices (relativism)? Regarding my studies, I did not start out with a specific ontological assumption about the sources of the actions I studied. Rather, the choices came along with the theories I chose to apply to best interpret the data in the abduction process of the analysis. The attention-based view allowed me to explain the attentional structures, while routine dynamics helped define the sources of empowerment of HR professionals. Epistemology refers to the views about the relationship between the researcher and researched reality. Every individual understands the environment around them from their own point of view (Alvesson & Skölberg, 2017). Hence, our knowledge is subjectively based on our individual experiences and insights when studying reality. Knowledge is embedded in and recreated through “doings”. Thus, when individuals do something, they do it based on their tacit knowledge of how it must be done, which they learn over time. The subjective epistemological stance guided my views on how I obtain knowledge about the phenomena in focus, which is to go out in the field and learn how people experience technology, their environment and the changes technology imposes on them. Those experiences and values are unique to each individual. In my research, I adopted an interpretive approach to understanding the sociomaterial world from the perspective of subjective experiences (Burrell & Morgan, 1979). This approach recognizes that the empirical world is complex, nuanced, and often unique, and therefore cannot be fully quantified or objectively measured. Instead, by examining the individual perspectives, material artefacts, and organizational context of everyday activities and interactions, we can gain insights into the fluid and continuously changing nature of organizational reality. I have chosen this approach for its emphasis on the importance of interpretation in constructing a nuanced understanding of organizational reality (Glaser & Strauss, 1999; Orlikowski & Scott, 2008), specifically the mechanisms and 20 Acta Wasaensia sociomaterial structures that underlie specific HRM practices or role transformations. 3.2 Research approach I adopted a case study methodology, “a research strategy that focuses on understanding the dynamics present within single settings” (Eisenhardt, 1989: 534). It is qualitative in nature and draws on various data collection methods. In the context of my empirical studies, I relied on ethnographic methods of data collection, including semi-structured interviews and observational data such as shadowing and observation in meetings. In addition, I had access to the organizations’ internal documentation, including structure charts, PowerPoint presentations from meetings, various reports etc., which provided additional information about ongoing processes. In both empirical studies (Papers 2 and 3), I pursued a single case study approach, which is often characterized by the researcher’s deep engagement in the settings to be studied (Eisenhardt, 1989). There were two main reasons for choosing the single case study method. First, following the key objective of the dissertation, which is to understand how HRM practice evolves in interaction with technology, and ontological assumptions about HRM practice as dynamically unfolding, I aimed to get in-depth understanding of the context in which the phenomena took place. Since I was specifically interested in the activities of the actors I observed at work, I had to consider that sources and patterns of actions cannot be fully understood without observing them in the context in which they occur. Moreover, my intentions to understand HRM activities beyond the observable, and uncover mechanisms of “becoming” practice/routine/role, made it necessary to understand the context more deeply, including its material and social aspects. Hence, a case study approach was suitable as it assumes a rich contextual description around the focal phenomena (Yin, 2003; Lincoln & Guba, 1995). Second, according to my beliefs about technology and the impact it has on organizations, organizational reality is constantly evolving through the actions and agency of individuals and the materiality that surrounds them. Case studies allow for going into the field with an open question and a flexible research design, where the specific research question and the case itself are dynamic and evolve as the organizational reality and empirical research unfold (Piekkari & Welch, 2017). The nature of case studies is inductive or abductive, which means that concepts and Acta Wasaensia 21 theoretical explanations are derived from the context and case itself, effectively describing the research phenomenon. Welch et al. (2011) in their classification of case studies argue that a case study can be used for interpretations and sense-making to understand particular theoretical explanations rather than generate generalizable causal explanations. Case studies allow researchers to understand actions through accessing their experiences and intentions. Moreover, it allows for theoretical divergence, i.e. different styles of theorizing and reporting research results (Cornelissen, 2017). Thus, I found a case study as the most appropriate approach for my research goals. 3.2.1 Case selection Certain selection criteria were used to choose the case companies in focus in both empirical studies. First, following the aim of the dissertation – to understand and explain how HRM as sociomaterial practice evolves in interaction with technology – one of the main criteria for case selection was to be able to observe how actors of HRM use or start to use technology to perform HRM activities. e-HRM as a concept covers all kinds of HRM practices performed through technology, so for me one of the choices was to limit the cases to one particular technology. Second, my research philosophy and approach required deep access to an organizational research setting in which I could get close to individual actors and be able to create personal and trustful relationships. Such close interaction with actors was planned to be achieved through frequent company visits, shadowing individuals, observing meetings and doing interviews. The interpretive research and open research question required flexibility from me as a researcher and from the case organization in terms of the kind of data to be collected as the research unfolded and research question narrowed down. I chose to use different data sets for the two empirical papers in the dissertation as they both in their unique ways highlight how different key HRM actors (line managers and HR professionals) interact with technology to shape the practice of HRM. My first empirical study focuses on remote performance evaluation in the context of mobile telework. Such a multi-location context is a good example of a hybrid work setting that is becoming increasingly commonplace. This case is conducive for understanding how line managers implement HRM practices, in this case performance evaluation, in remote work settings. Consequently, it was valuable to receive access to observe and shadow their work, as well as understand the company’s expectations about their work. The case study was conducted in the 22 Acta Wasaensia Russian subsidiary of a large global organization, which helped to build stronger relationships with participants as my own origin and native language is Russian. The second empirical case examined the implementation of technology as it unfolded in real time, and the changing role of HR professionals in the context of an institute of higher education. Organizational goals to reorganize the HR department structure with the help of technology allowed a focus on HR professionals’ routines and the impact of technology on the role of HR. The reorganizational effort was about standardization and unification of the existing HR units and their services across the different units as well as to increase efficiency, enabling HR to become a strategic actor. The case was revelatory in nature as the opportunity to follow the implementation of the new technology combined with the restructuring efforts in-situ rendered the phenomena of interest more readily observable (Pettigrew, 1990). 3.3 Data Collection To collect the data for the dissertation I followed the activities of the two case companies intensively over certain periods of time. Following the basic principles of ethnographic methods, I engaged with my case organizations, attending different official and unofficial events and meetings, spending time in the organizational premises during working hours and conducting interviews. During the fieldwork, I generated empirical materials including field notes, interview transcripts, photographs, and physical and digital copies of the internal documents. Below, I elaborate on the data collection process in more detail for each of the two case companies. 3.3.1 Case study 1: description and data collection The context for the case in Paper 2 is the maintenance department of a local unit of a multinational engineering and service company. Teams of mechanics (subordinates) are overseen by engineers (line managers). Collectively, they are responsible for routine maintenance work, preventive repairs, and equipment work improvement when the client orders. The mechanics always work individually at the client sites, remotely from their team and line managers. The mechanics’ day is scheduled according to planned maintenance but can be interrupted by the call centre to solve urgent tasks at client sites. The expectation of fast reaction times to callouts, the number of maintenance jobs and the distance between the sites requires careful planning to manage everything on time. Acta Wasaensia 23 The company implemented a real-time monitoring tool, Wire, to improve the efficiency and quality of maintenance services and reporting systems. The multifaceted tool serves the needs of mechanics by enabling them to schedule, report, and keep track of their activities efficiently. Wire also communicates client callouts to the mechanics and provides access to real-time information about ongoing activities for different parties of the maintenance service chain (from clients to management). From the Wire, line managers have real-time information about individual mechanics’ ongoing tasks, progress, and results. The case study was conducted in the autumn of 2018 and during spring 2019. Through personal networks I engaged into conversation with the CEO and HR director of the Russian subsidiary of a large global manufacturing and engineering company. The organization had implemented the Wire in its maintenance service department two years earlier, however, senior management did not feel it was used to its full capacity. Some managers ignored the existence of it, others relied on it too much, and the data in the system was not always up to date. We agreed that I would first interview managers and also spend some time with them to gain an understanding of their work, provided that this was ok for the managers themselves. The interviews were designed as semi structured, with the aim of gaining an understanding of the work of the line managers and their interactions with mechanics and available digital tools. I chose to concentrate on three main themes: their everyday work activities (major tasks, daily activities, interactions with others in the workplace), their interactions with their subordinates the mechanics (in particular concerning performance evaluation), and the digital tools they used in their work. At the end of the interviews I asked if they would consent to me following their work activities in real-time over the course of a few days. I noted down who agreed, and also asked permission from their direct superior. After discussing the formalities and safety requirements I chose to shadow three line managers whom I, based on the interviews, found to vary in terms of how they spent their work days, and how they talked about their own work as supervisors. When studying the performance evaluation in a remote setting, shadowing was a natural choice as it is helpful for studying people on the move (Czarniawska, 2014). As a result of the fieldwork, the qualitative data consisted of 29 interviews (16 with line managers, 3 with division directors, 5 with mechanics, 1 with the HR director and 4 with service development managers) paired with the shadowing of line managers for a total of 12 days in order to gain further insight into their everyday performance evaluation practices. The interviews with senior managers as well as the first 9 interviews with line managers were done prior to the shadowing. The 24 Acta Wasaensia rest of the interviews were done in parallel to the shadowing activities. I spent in total 12 full days with three line managers, four days each. The fieldnotes from the shadowing amounted to roughly 100 pages and about ten photographs, through which I noted down my observations, reactions and reflections. During the shadowing I paid attention to what managers did during the day, their interactions with colleagues, clients and employees, the methods of such interactions, and their work on computers, asking them to specifying the tasks they focused on at different times. During the interviews and fieldwork, I at times requested additional material, for example the official job descriptions of the line managers or the hierarchical structure of the organization, and got access to most of these documents. 3.3.2 Case study 2: description and data collection The context for the case in Paper 3 is a large institute of higher education with approximately 12000 students, 400 professors and 4000 other faculty and staff (DigiU). DigiU consists of six different units with their own HR functions (SHR) and an organization-wide HR unit (OHR). Since a major reorganization about 10 years ago, different initiatives have been carried out over the years to align as many processes as possible. To push their digitalization strategy DigiU decided to adopt a cloud-based HR system, namely TaskFlow, considering it as an enabler of common HR processes across units. From the start, TaskFlow as a technology was envisioned as a driver for achieving efficiency of HRM processes and enabling the reorganization of the HR function. In particular, they envisioned HR to take on a more strategic role, which entails building a partnership with managers to develop people management practices. Case study 2 started shortly after I finished the data collection for the first case study. Through our academic network my co-author and I got the opportunity to follow the implementation process of TaskFlow in DigiU. Our first meeting with HR management took place in the spring of 2019 when TaskFlow was officially launched. During the meeting we learned about the project, its objectives and timeline and agreed on the data collection methods. Our main data sources were interviews, observations, and documents. We conducted 31 semi-structured interviews with 24 respondents which lasted between 40 and 70 minutes each. We did a first round of interviews with 24 respondents in 2019 and then conducted follow up interviews 12-15 months later Acta Wasaensia 25 with 6 respondents. Whereas in the first round of interviews we followed a similar interview protocol for everyone, the follow-up interviews focused more specifically on individual respondents’ current activities and challenges, and was driven by our ongoing data analysis efforts. During the interviews we asked about how technology gets implemented by different organizational actors and the role of the interviewees in the process, as well as their task scope and their interactions with different members of the organization. Shortly after the first interviews, we were granted access to observe the HR professionals at work. To be able to follow both SHR and OHR we split up and each followed what was happening as the new HR tool was rolled out. While my co- author was observing the implementation at the OHR, I mainly shadowed HR secretaries and HR partners within SHR and were able to join meetings as well as events organized for employees and managers to facilitate the use of TaskFlow. We also participated in HR forums held twice a year where everyone got together for about 4 hours to discuss plans, ongoing activities and issues that needs to be solved. While the first part of the forum was structured as presentations on various topics, the second part was organized as a workshop where participants discussed potential solutions for perceived challenges. During COVID-19 such forums were held online and a lot of discussions were summarized on the online whiteboards which we also had access to. In additional to interviews and observations, we also had access to a wide variety of internal documents concerning, for example, the discussion process and goals set for the transformation, the results of an internal survey on who does what within the DigiU HR function, and descriptions of the tasks of each HR role at SHR and OHR. 3.4 Data analysis Since the empirical studies are based on different data and use different theoretical perspectives, in this section I will outline the general principles of my analytical approach. While exploratory, qualitative research in general is free from pre- existing theoretical frameworks, in practice it is not purely inductive. While the data collection and the focus on actions during my observations were guided by the sociomaterial persepctive on technology and organizing, the data analysis approach can be characterized as emergent, i.e. abductive. Being neither inductive nor deductive, the abductive approach assumes iterations between theoretical concepts and data to refine theoretical ideas during the research process (Dubois & Gadde, 2002; Saetre & Van de Ven, 2021). The conceptual advancements are 26 Acta Wasaensia made as fieldwork progressed and the explanations are sought for observed experiences. This also means that specific research questions for both of the empirical papers were developed when being deep in the research process and at the end of it. While the overarching aim of both the empirical studies was to understand how technology play a role in HRM practices, the conceptual frameworks explaining technology-enabled practices were different, and the output of the research work emerged at the time of the study and while working with the data. Together, my experience, the primary research question, the sociomaterial perspective and case study design underpinned abductive approach to analyze data. I started the data collection for both studies with some preconceptions about how HR work is carried out by managers and by HR professionals, that were developed during my previous work experience in HR, as well as via my reading of the e-HRM literature. However, theory was not guiding my data analysis at the beginning, rather I searched for theory that would help best to translate my observations drawn from the data (Mantere, 2018). The search for suitable theory to explain what we saw in our data was a process of trial and error. Reading and interpreting the data was instrumental, but this also involved remaining open to consider different theoretical perspectives during data analysis. The analysis of both cases studies started more or less in the same way. Using interview transcripts and fieldnotes, I developed a thick description of what I saw and how I saw it. Already at that stage potential themes started to emerge as descriptions were transformed in the form of text or talked over during the discussions with co-authors. For example, for Paper 2 it was “construction of managerial identities”, “performance management”, “work spaces”, etc. In Paper 3, a thick description was written in the form of a chronological narrative as it was a convenient way of presenting the processual data as we followed the technology implementation process. Such descriptions were done for the purpose of understanding the actions, actors, places, and context in our cases, as well as defining meanings of the actions and their purpose. For the purpose of organizing and mapping the data, I started to generate ‘mini- narratives’ (Paper 3) or large tables where I listed managerial ad-hoc and routinized activities to help me understand the sociomaterial structures of those actions (material artefacts, actors, interactions, purposes, places, timing etc.). When data is mapped and organized it becomes easier to see the surprising things in the data that needs to be explained (Alvesson & Kärreman, 2007). This helped to delimit the data, code it and also group the codes into conceptual categories. Acta Wasaensia 27 Finally, based on the analysis, I attempted to extend our understanding about the phenomena in focus by drawing on the most relevant organization theories. For more detailed information about the different steps followed in data analysis, please see the method sections of empirical Papers 2 and 3. 3.5 Quality of the research This dissertation does not aim to provide causal explanations, or generalize findings, but instead the focus lies in providing rich descriptions of the phenomena at hand, and plausible explanations for the proposed research problems. Following the philosophical conventions of the interpretive paradigm and assuming the subjectivity of knowledge, I reflect on my own experiences, biases and role in the conducted studies. To evaluate the quality of the qualitative research I discuss the following relevant criteria: (1) self-reflexivity, (2) thick descriptions and transferability, and (3) triangulation (Cresswell & Miller, 2000; Welch & Piekkari, 2017; Tracy, 2010; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Self-reflexivity is about being aware of one’s own influence on the process of collecting and analyzing data. I have previous experience of working as an HR partner in a large international organization where I worked with recruitment activities in cooperation with line managers, and this experience has influenced the data collection process, as well as the analysis of data. Through my previous experience of working in recruitment, I gained valuable skills in interviewing. These skills were helpful for my research interviews. For example, I had experience of how to connect to my interviewee for a more relaxed and open discussion, and how to formulate open questions conducive for learning more about interviewees’ personal experiences and behavior in particular situations. I was also aware of the importance of the environment in which interviews took place, and preferred to conduct them in places where the interviewees would feel not just comfortable but also on their ‘own’ territory. This also provided an opportunity for me to see where and how people work and how they organize their working. I also want to reflect on the development of trust between me and the individuals being observed in the workplace. In the case of DigiU, the process of building trust, in particular with the HR secretaries, was somewhat easier than with the line managers in Paper 2. This may be due to their own familiarity of working with academics, which allowed for a greater level of understanding of the research process. HR professionals were generally open and relaxed during our interviews 28 Acta Wasaensia and observations, with some even offering additional information to help clarify certain points. Regarding the line managers in Paper 2, I gained access to interview them through senior managers. My initial contact was with the head of service development and HR director (administrative unit), however, the majority of the data was collected with line managers that provide maintenance services for the clients (operational unit). Early in the process I discovered that in addition to high power distance, which is characteristic of the Russian environment, there was tension between the operational and the administrative unit, with line managers frequently expressing frustration with decisions made by the administration. Some of the managers assumed that I had been commissioned to do my study by senior management as a kind of audit. I thus had to take time during the interviews to explain the purpose of my research, and that the information I collected was for my research purposes. Shadowing was an important complement to the interviews in Paper 2 since it was during my site visits that I managed to establish a trustful connection to the line managers through more informal discussions and chats. On the other hand, in my effort to build trust with line managers I ‘took their side’, being supportive and empathetic to their struggles with the administrative unit, something that could potentially compromise my own neutrality as a researcher (Brannick & Coghlan, 2007). Thick, rich description and transferability, as outlined by Cresswell and Miller (2000), are key evaluative criteria for high-quality qualitative research. This involves providing a detailed and nuanced depiction of the setting and themes under study. In this research, a thick description of the research settings and phenomenon was depicted in the fieldnotes with the aim of describing details on organizational events and contextual background (Geertz, 1973). Some of the description that was particularly relevant for the phenomena in focus was included in the papers themselves, including extensive quotations from interviews to allow readers to draw their own conclusions. Thick description is also viewed as credible and allows readers to consider the potential transferability of the findings to other settings or similar contexts (Ragin, 1992). In the interpretive research approach, triangulation is another important evaluative criterion, which involves obtaining multiple perspectives from informants in order to capture a diverse range of voices (Welch & Piekkari, 2017). In this dissertation, informants were selected from various teams related to the subjects of my research. The inclusion of multiple voices allows for the exploration of different aspects of problems, increases the scope of the study, deepens understanding, and encourages consistent reinterpretation (Tracy, 2010). Acta Wasaensia 29 Observational data was crucial for both my studies since it is hard for people to explain what they do and why they do things in a certain way. For example, observing interaction patterns with my own eyes enabled me, for example, to ask specific questions about specific routines (Czarniawska, 2018). Being in the field also allows for contextual richness, which was important for the interpretive approach I chose to pursue. Additional documents and files, ‘naturally occurring data’ (e.g. meeting notes, PowerPoint Presentation, company structure visuals), provided by the case organizations were extremely helpful for drawing the full contextual picture (Silverman, 2015). 30 Acta Wasaensia 4 SUMMARY OF THE PAPERS In this section I summarize the three papers comprising this compilation-based dissertation. I present their theoretical and empirical foundations, the key findings, and scientific contributions. 4.1 Paper 1. “Beyond the ʽeʼ in e-HRM: Integrating a sociomaterial perspective” The e-HRM literature has mainly focused on the consequences of technology implementation as a tool to reach desired goals, and on the contingency factors that support the successful adoption of technology. Conceptualizing technology as a tool to achieve desired organizational goals has led to mixed research findings on whether technology can be key to solving organizational problems and improving performance. This review paper argues that the e-HRM research field has yet to realize the full potential that lies in theoretical perspectives applied in the fields of organizational studies and information technology. The aim of Paper 1 is to introduce a sociomaterial perspective that broadens the conceptualization of technology, actors and HRM practices as dynamic and interrelated concepts. Recognizing the equal importance of human agency, material artefacts and social context in forming and reproducing e-HRM practices is argued to broaden the research agenda of the e-HRM field and provide additional, complementary ways to explain the mechanisms that underlie the consequences of e-HRM. To argue in support of the sociomaterial perspective, I first discuss three major concepts within e-HRM research – technology, actors and HRM practices – based on a comprehensive literature review. Second, I juxtapose these concepts with sociomaterial perspectives to illustrate new conceptual and theoretical tools that can be applied to address current limitations in our understanding of the impact of e-HRM. The review of the concepts of technology, actors, and HRM practices revealed how the e-HRM literature tends to treat technology as a ‘black-box’ and adopts a deterministic view on technology. It is often unclear how technology works and what constraints it imposes on the users and other actors involved. Instead, research is mostly concerned with the consequences, their typology and whether they were intended or not. e-HRM research commonly regards actors as direct users of technology, emphasizing the role of their perceptions about technology for evaluating the success of technology adoption in the organization. The behavior of direct users, mainly HR professionals with a set of competencies and skills to use the technology, is often explained in terms of their acceptance of the system. Acta Wasaensia 31 HRM practices are reviewed through the prism of traditional formal HRM practices such as recruitment, selection, performance management systems, compensation and benefits systems (Stone et al., 2006). Similar to the general HRM literature, e-HRM practices are conceptualized as a path to achieving strategic goals by applying universalistic “best practices” that are inscribed in the technology. It is also viewed as a way of realizing HR’s potential and acquiring increasingly strategic roles for HR professionals. By juxtaposing the concepts of technology, actors, and HRM practices as found in the e-HRM literature with the key concepts emanating from the sociomaterial perspective, I advance a research agenda based on technology and its materiality, actors and their agency, and practices as embodied and materially mediated human activities that are organized with a shared understanding. The paper emphasizes the importance of considering how actions and material objects are intertwined and constitute "doing HRM" when applying the sociomaterial perspective. This calls for thick descriptions of the organizational context and how work is performed in order to understand how technology matters, for whom and in what manner. The study makes two major contributions to the literature on e-HRM. First, it advances the field by introducing new theoretical perspectives and concepts that can provide a complementary way to explain the mechanisms that underlie the consequences of e-HRM. Second, the paper proposes a research agenda that emphasizes interpretive research focused on the enactment of the materiality of technology in the production of outcomes. The agenda advocates focusing on actions and patterns of actions as meaningful phenomena to be analyzed and understood. 4.2 Paper 2. “Evaluating performance in the context of mobile telework: An attention-based view” Paper 2 is an empirical account of how line managers evaluate the performance of their subordinates with the help of technology, in the context of mobile telework. The increasing amount of technology and information, as well as its volume, variety, and fragmentation, can be challenging to manage as it creates additional attentional demands. In this paper, we shed light on the attentional engagement of line managers in performance evaluation (PE) in the context of employees performing mobile telework primarily in the field rather than in their homes. Managers working in a mobile context often have monitoring tools to help them accomplish one of their primary HRM responsibilities: performance management. 32 Acta Wasaensia However, only a limited amount of previous work in this area has tried to understand how managers perform evaluation work when employees primarily work at different client sites and are not collocated with their manager. The aim of the paper is thus to examine PE practice as attentional engagement, i.e. what managers direct their time, energy and effort on in PE. We investigate how technologies and social context as attentional stimuli on the one hand, and individual attentional perspectives of managers on the other, interact to shape attentional engagement. The study was designed as a qualitative case study and conducted in the context of a maintenance department in a large multinational engineering and service company. The empirical findings are based on 16 interviews with line managers, paired with shadowing, to gain an in-depth understanding of their everyday PE practices. The findings show that managers’ focus of attentional engagement in PE centers on performance actors and performance indicators. The key performance actors were the mechanics, customers and equipment. Managers whose role identity was strongly linked to their perception of themselves primarily as engineers (and secondly as supervisors), engaged in more direct, physical face-to-face observation and communication, while managers who identified primarily as supervisors (and secondly as engineers) engaged in more indirect, technology-supported observati