Table 1.
Overview of Studies
| Reference | Journal | Article type1 | Theory/concept | Type of market/industry and country | Relationship between HRd and LMS2 | Research methods3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Baron & Bielby, 1980) | American Sociological Review | T | Dual labor market theory, Internal labor market, Marxian class theory | Not applicable | LMS->HRd->LMS | Not applicable |
| (Hakim, 1990) | Work, Employment and Society | QN | Labor market segmentation theory | Sample of establishments, the United Kingdom | LMS->HRd->LMS | Survey |
| (Kalleberg, 2003) | Work and Occupations | QN | Core-periphery model | Sample of establishments, the United States | HRd->LMS | Survey |
| (Polavieja, 2003) | European Sociological Review | QN | Employment-rent approach | Sample of employees, Spain | LMS->HRd->LMS | Survey |
| (Pfeifer, 2009) | Economic Record | QN | Dual labor market theory, Core-periphery model | Sample of establishments, Germany | LMS->HRd | Survey |
| (van Jaarsveld, de Grip, & Sieben, 2009) | European Journal of Industrial Relations | M | Not explicitly indicated | Call centres, The Netherlands | LMS->HRd | Survey and interviews |
| (Heinze & Wolf, 2010) | Journal of Population Economics | QN | Discrimination model, Collective bargaining models, Insider-outsider theory | Sample of companies, Germany | LMS->HRd | Survey (LEED) |
| (Avent-Holt & Tomaskovic-Devey, 2012) | Social Forces | QN | Relational inequality theory | Manufacturing plants, the United States and Japan | LMS->HRd | Survey (LEED) |
| (Friberg, 2012) | Ethnic and Racial Studies | M | Dual labor market theory, Flexible firm model | Construction companies, Norway | LMS->HRd | Survey, In-depth interviews |
| (Ilsøe, 2012) | Economic and Industrial Democracy | QL | Dual labor market theory, Insider-outsider theory | Five industrial workplaces, Denmark | HRd->LMS | Interviews |
| (Pfeifer, 2012) | Journal for Labour Market Research | QN | Dual labor market theory | Sample of companies, Germany | LMS->HRd | Survey (LEED) |
| (Suleman, Lagoa, Suleman, & Pereira, 2013) | Portuguese Journal of Social Science | QN | Internal labor market, Collective bargaining models, Wage cyclicality models, Performance-related pay models | Sample of companies, Portugal | LMS->HRd | Survey (LEED) |
| (Avent-Holt & Tomaskovic-Devey, 2014) | American Behavioral Scientist | T | Relational inequality theory | Not applicable | HRd->LMS | Not applicable |
| (Pfeifer, 2014) | Journal of Labor Research | QN | Dual internal labor markets | Sample of companies, Germany | LMS->HRd | Survey (LEED) |
| (Tomaskovic-Devey, Hällsten, & Avent-Holt, 2015) | American Journal of Sociology | QN | Relational inequality theory | Economy-wide data, Sweden | LMS->HRd | Registry tax data (LEED) |
| (Ochsenfeld, 2018)* | European Sociological Review | QN | Dual labor market theory | Sample of establishments, Germany | HRd->LMS | Survey (LEED) |
| (Suleman, Lagoa, & Suleman, 2019) | International Journal of Human Resource Management | QN | Internal labor market, Human capital theory, Efficiency models | Sample of companies, Portugal | LMS->HRd->LMS | Survey (LEED) |
| (Kim et al., 2020) | Sociological Perspectives | QN | Relational inequality theory | Sample of establishments, Korea | LMS->HRd | Survey (LEED) |
| (Pulignano et al., 2020) | Economic and Industrial Democracy | QL | Not explicitly indicated | Multinational corporation subsidiaries in Belgium, Germany, and Britain (manufacturing sector) | LMS->HRd | Interviews, site visits, participant observations, and analysis of documents |
| (Tomaskovic-Devey & Melzer, 2020) | PLOS ONE | QN | Not explicitly indicated | Sample of companies, Germany | LMS->HRd | Survey (LEED) |
| (van Dijk, Kooij, Karanika-Murray, De Vos, & Meyer, 2020) | Organizational Psychology Review | T | Dual labor market theory | Not applicable | LMS->HRd->LMS | Not applicable |
| (Chen & Tang, 2022) | Global Networks | QL | Core-periphery model | Crewing agencies, China | LMS->HRd | Interviews |
| (Peters & Melzer, 2022) | Work and Occupations | QN | Relational inequality theory | Sample of establishments, Germany | LMS->HRd | Survey (LEED) |
Figure 1.
Model of the relationships between human resource differentiation and labor market segmentation.
*The resources property can be classified into both groups as it is considered in the context of each of the other HR differentiation properties – they can refer to one (or all) of the three groups of organizational resources described in AMO model (resources that enhance employee abilities, motivation and opportunities; see Bos-Nehles et al., 2023).
Figure S1.
Process of selecting articles included in the review
Table S1.
Review results – Web of Science
| Results for keyword combinations | hr differentiation | human resource differentiation | workforce segmentation | workforce differentiation | strategic HRM | pay dispersion | i-deal* | diversity management | talent management |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| labour market segment* | 0 | 0 | 58 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 8 | 5 |
| labour market segregation | 0 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 8 | 0 |
Table S2.
Review results – Scopus
| Results for keyword combinations | hr differentiation | human resource differentiation | workforce segmentation | workforce differentiation | strategic HRM | pay dispersion | i-deal* | diversity management | talent management |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| labour market segment* | 0 | 4 | 64 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 8 | 8 |
| labour market segregation | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
Table S3.
Contingency table - assessment of titles and abstracts
| Rater 2 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rater 1 | 0 (irrelevant) | 1 (relevant) | 9 (potentially relevant) | Total | |
| 0 (irrelevant) | 97 | 1 | 5 | 103 | |
| 1 (relevant) | 11 | 3 | 1 | 15 | |
| 9 (potentially relevant) | 3 | 3 | 0 | 6 | |
| Total | 111 | 7 | 6 | 124 | |
Table S4.
The citation indexes of the journals in which the collected articles appeared (the indicator of the quality of the articles)
| Reference | Journal | CiteScore (2022) | JIF (2022) |
|---|---|---|---|
| (Baron & Bielby, 1980) | American Sociological Review | 17.8 | 9.1 |
| (Hakim, 1990) | Work, Employment and Society | 8.5 | 3.7 |
| (Kalleberg, 2003) | Work and Occupations | 5.3 | 2.9 |
| (Polavieja, 2003) | European Sociological Review | 5.8 | 3.2 |
| (Pfeifer, 2009) | Economic Record | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| (van Jaarsveld et al., 2009) | European Journal of Industrial Relations | 4.8 | 2.6 |
| (Heinze & Wolf, 2010) | Journal of Population Economics | 9.2 | 6.1 |
| (Avent-Holt & Tomaskovic-Devey, 2012) | Social Forces | 6.6 | 4.8 |
| (Friberg, 2012) | Ethnic and Racial Studies | 4.3 | 2.5 |
| (Ilsøe, 2012) | Economic and Industrial Democracy | 3.8 | 1.5 |
| (Pfeifer, 2012) | Journal for Labour Market Research | 2.6 | 1.7 |
| (Suleman et al., 2013) | Portuguese Journal of Social Science | 0.8 | 0.2 |
| (Avent-Holt & Tomaskovic-Devey, 2014) | American Behavioral Scientist | 5.3 | 3.2 |
| (Pfeifer, 2014) | Journal of Labor Research | 1.6 | 0.8 |
| (Tomaskovic-Devey et al., 2015) | American Journal of Sociology | 6.2 | 4.4 |
| (Ochsenfeld, 2018)* | European Sociological Review | 5.8 | 3.2 |
| (Suleman et al., 2019) | International Journal of Human Resource Management | 10.0 | 5.6 |
| (Kim et al., 2020) | Sociological Perspectives | 3.6 | 2.4 |
| (Pulignano et al., 2020) | Economic and Industrial Democracy | 3.8 | 1.5 |
| (Tomaskovic-Devey & Melzer, 2020) | PLOS ONE | 6.0 | 3.7 |
| (van Dijk et al., 2020) | Organizational Psychology Review | 7.6 | 6.1 |
| (Chen & Tang, 2022) | Global Networks | 4.2 | 2.4 |
| (Peters & Melzer, 2022) | Work and Occupations | 5.3 | 2.9 |
Note: All but three journals had JIF>=1.5 – the criterion indicated by Kraus et al. (2020) – and CiteScore>=2. Two journals below these thresholds (Economic Record and Journal of Labor Research) were rated ‘2’ in the Academic Journal Guide 2021. The article from the last journal (Portuguese Journal of Social Science) was included in the review as it presents a high-quality analysis. Furthermore, a similar study was published by the same authors (except for the last one) several years later (Suleman et al., 2019) in a journal with much higher citation rates (International Journal of Human Resource Management).
Table S5.
Properties of HR differentiation (occurrence and research methodology)
| Property1 | Occurrence (number of articles) | Considered resources (number of articles)2 | Measurement (examples) | Level of analysis (number of articles)3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Basis | 16 | M–9 | correlation between criteria (e.g., tenure) and resource (e.g., hourly wage); an employee’s affiliation to a particular collective agreement or branch/plant of the company | A–14 |
| AO–1 | ||||
| AM–1 | ||||
| AMO–2 | ||||
| Formalization | 19 | M–9 | scope of collective agreements for particular groups of employees | I–1 A–17 |
| AM–1 | ||||
| MO–1 | ||||
| AMO–6 | ||||
| Purpose | 11 | M–4 | employers’ manpower strategies | I–1 A–9 |
| AM–2 | ||||
| MO–1 | ||||
| AMO–3 | ||||
| Outcome heterogeneity | 20 | M–12 | difference in wage level or the number of training days between the two groups (e.g., permanent and temporary employees); Gini coefficient (wage) | A–17 |
| AM–2 | ||||
| MO–1 | ||||
| AMO–4 | ||||
| Distribution shape | 11 | M–8 | the size of the core workforce and the peripheral workforce; skewness of total wage | A–10 |
| AMO–3 | ||||
| Central tendency | 4 | M–4 | firm average hourly wage; difference between the firm’s average total hourly wage and the average wage in the industry | A–4 |