The lack of impact of dissensus inspired analysis on developments in the field of human resource management

Mainstream HRM journals have largely ignored critical perspectives on HRM. This is the main finding from our study examining trends in publishing on HRM through an analysis of published work in the period 1995 to 2000. Using the 'dissensus-consensus' dimension of a framework developed by Deetz (1996) we examine the role of academic journals in constructing HRM knowledge in what turns out to be largely consensus oriented ways. We survey HRM articles in nine journals over a six year period, and conclude that HRM is primarily constituted from a consensus perspective in the mainstream HRM journals while European based general management and organization theory journals construct HRM in both dissensus and consensus oriented ways. We propose reasons why the critical debates in HRM have largely been ignored in the mainstream journals as well as what this might mean for HRM theory and practice given the lack of critical and dissenting voices so evident in leading HRM journals.