4.1.1. R&D: a world that has long remained foreign to HRM regulations

R&D has long been managed according to the endogenous rules of a professional world marked by the very strong influence of peers and epistemic communities that extend beyond and across organizational boundaries. Until the early 1990s (in France, for instance), it was normal that R&D, and especially the “R” part within it, should be self-managed according to its own logic and without the intrusion of “external” actors having a managerial vision. To this day, recruitment, individual evaluation and career management practices are marked by the influence of reputation phenomena within the community and by judgment criteria that are very similar to those of the academic world (such as the expertise, originality and robustness of the knowledge generated).

This industrial R&D world has always been very porous with regard to academic research. Industrial R&D researchers and engineers who are trained and socialized within the higher education and research system, once hired in a company, continue to maintain close links with the academic world within the framework of their professional activities. A certain mimetism in job titles or promotion criteria gives industrial R&D professionals legitimacy with regard to academic partners and public authorities (see Box 4.1). This legitimacy enables them to establish a relationship with academic research and to reap a good number of benefits from these links, such as opening up access to knowledge and ideas, equipment, recruitment pools, funding, etc.

This near autonomous regulation of R&D, which was fairly widespread until the 1990s, was not specific to R&D. Thus, organizations had quite similar operation methods and hired highly qualified staff (teachers, doctors, magistrates, etc.), which the sociological literature referred to as “professionals”. In these organizations, HRM, as stated by Pichault and Nizet [PIC 13], was of conventionalist (or deliberative) type: admission and professional assessments were collegial; recruitment and promotion decision-making processes were subject to co-optation by a peer panel; training was fully controlled by professionals.

However, though R&D is not the sole professional field governed by this type of HRM logic and these types of practices, it stands out within large industrial companies. The most widely disseminated HRM practices were indeed designed in large corporations, but for functions other than R&D and estranged from these professional communities. Therefore, it is no exaggeration to say that HRM and R&D share a mutual lack of understanding.

For HRM specialists, R&D activities and technical expertise are still largely a terra incognita. This stems from cognitive complexity and cultural distance. It is indeed very difficult for the managers to understand such a complex activity (with specific vocabulary and concepts) which is moreover intangible. The R&D activities are in fact largely inaccessible for anyone outside the field. This could even be the case between the scientists themselves: a polymer chemist, for example, who is unable to understand and evaluate the quality of the work of a mathematician specializing in specific types of algorithms. This is what justifies the relevance of the peer review. Therefore, we can imagine how it is even more difficult for actors in the HR function, mainly from “non-scientific” training (their background being generally human and social sciences: law, psychology and particularly management). In addition, the vast majority of them have neither prepared nor defended a PhD thesis nor been trained in research. Beyond cognitive distance, these communities are also alienated by cultural distance. Thus, HR managers perceive researchers as people with strange and unusual ways of working, rebellious to any management regulation. This cultural distance is less significant for engineers working in the “Development” part of R&D and engaged in more “concrete” activities (in the sense of greater materiality and closer proximity with applications), but it still remains important.

Symmetrically, from the point of view of R&D personnel, HRM, just like management in general, is perceived as a set of administrative activities, without much interest. R&D engineers and researchers often have a very inconsistent understanding of what HRM is all about. This is often limited in their minds to the payroll or other administrative tasks. In addition, if it is explained to them or if they observe that the HR function has a potentially broader scope of intervention, the discussion turns to the competence, or incompetence, of HRM specialists. Since they do not have a scientific and technical training background, what could be their contribution? How can they be relevant and bring added value to decision-making with regard to recruitment or promotion, for example? What is their legitimacy to intervene in the operational modes of a professional world of which they understand nothing? Therefore, any attempt to penetrate one’s territory is viewed with some suspicion.

In a bid to bring these actors closer together, the company initiates training and communication actions. Thus, training introduces R&D professionals to the mysteries of management. Cooperation is sometimes organized around one-off events, particularly during meetings with higher education institutions aimed at recruitment. We might think that through constant collaboration, the distance between the two worlds should scale down. However, this is not enough. On the contrary even, the more we know each other, the more we realize that we are not driven by the same logic and that these logics are neither spontaneous nor necessarily reconcilable [BOB 15]. The distance is particularly wide between the scientific and technical logic advocated by researchers and the managerial logic that HR departments intend to promote. While the former, discouraged by the routine and normative constraints that limit their creativity, aspire to freely produce an original work, the latter intend to make the same managerial order prevail in the entire company.

Moreover, would it not be uncommon for relationships between R&D and HRM to take on the proportions of a standoff, when they do not escalate into confrontation. What may have changed over time is the powerful upswing of HRM, as well as economic and managerial logics in general that take precedence over the magnitude of scientific and technical logic, hitherto very strong in large French industrial groups long managed by former engineering school graduates.

Thus, HRM now receives greater attention in R&D, but relationships with scientific and technical professionals are still complicated. Although the latter partially, and in spite of themselves, integrate management logic that has become very significant, including in R&D, they consider the HR function as the linchpin behind a broader managerial rationalization project (see Chapter 3) combining control, economic logic and bureaucratization, which is indeed what it is. The issue then is the ability of the HR function to be something more than just that. Could it be also a source of added value through the actions it undertakes within the R&D field? This is an essential discussion that will be continued throughout this chapter.

4.1.2. Recurrent tension between standardization and differentiation

Once HRM penetrates the R&D world, the issue of the application of “standard” practices (similar to those deployed in other functions), or, in contrast, “differentiated” practices (adapted to R&D specificities), will arise. The standardization-differentiation dilemma exists for other communities, but is particularly intense in R&D. Indeed, it combines a good number of specificities, which distinguishes it from the other functions of the company: the R&D activities are creative, uncertain, complex, singular, intellectual and partly immaterial, open to the outside, etc. (see also Chapter 2). They are driven by highly trained and autonomous professionals, invested in epistemic communities. This standardization-differentiation dilemma of HRM practices in R&D has been the subject of several studies [CHA 05, DHI 08].

Each alternative has certain advantages and disadvantages. Standardization simplifies the application of HRM processes by providing a common base, and it enables the specialization of the work of HR actors and thus a rise in professionalism of the latter (and incidentally a rationalization of the costs of the HR function!). The deployment of homogeneous practices throughout the company is also a source of internal consistency that is put forth to encourage collaboration and crossfunction mobility. It addresses the concern for equal treatment between all employees of the company. It helps the HRD to increase its influence and assert its central role, managing all processes covering the entire company from the head office. However, standardization widens the distance between the HR function and R&D, because of the negation of the specific nature of R&D and its actual conditions for operation. The R&D professionals could feel disqualified when obliged to follow the standards imposed by organizational actors whose legitimacy they question.

Conversely, differentiation makes it possible to adapt to the specificities of R&D activities and professionals, and to their cultural particularities. The implementation of HR practices specifically designed for R&D communities makes them more legitimate, thus facilitating their appropriation by R&D stakeholders (managers and professionals). Another positive effect of the differentiation of HRM is the possibility to assert its expertise in relation to that of the technical world. However, differentiation raises several questions. It indeed introduces a violation of equal treatment. It can introduce additional impediments relative to the possibilities of crossfunction mobility for R&D communities, in the context where R&D employees are already perceived as atypical and not specifically bound to move from one department to another.

Thus, the appropriate question, rather, is to know where to position the cursor on the continuum of situations moving from total differentiation to absolute standardization: differentiating or homogenizing to what extent? Which HR variables (recruitment, remuneration, training, mobility, career management, promotion of professional equality, etc.) should rather be differentiated or standardized? If we want to differentiate HRM practices, on what grounds will they be actually differentiated and how? In any case, before following a certain option, it is necessary to question the reasons behind such action, while avoiding to conform to dominant practices by a mimetic behavior of copying the practices of other companies without questioning what relevance they would be of to us. It is equally important to ponder on the actions that can help us to avoid or limit the adverse effects of the selected option, since, as previously indicated, standardization and differentiation each have certain disadvantages.

Many companies are trying to adopt a middle-of-the-road approach, associating some degree of standardization (following a managerial rationalization process) and partial adaptation to R&D specificities. Several factors promote a greater homogenization of HRM practices between R&D and other functions, and this coupled with a convergence towards HR models that are globally disseminated, especially the individualizing model (as referred to by Pichault and Nizet [PIC 13]). Here, the internationalization of large industrial undertakings and their R&D (see Chapter 1) operate in this direction. However, studies suggest that there is not necessarily a strong alignment as we might have thought.

As for the convergence towards a global and single model, Béret et al. [BÉR 03] showed the persistence of national differences. Thus, recruitment and remuneration systems continued to be designed at the national level, reflecting the legal and institutional differences of countries that are taken into account in human resource management practices applied in the R&D sphere. Further studies have to be conducted and considered in this perspective, given the recent intensification of phenomena around the internationalization of R&D and globalization of management models.

Regarding the convergence towards the individualizing model, Dhifallah et al. [DHI 08] demonstrate on two cases, Saint-Gobain and STMicroelectronics, that the latter has indeed gained considerable ground in R&D. However, they point out how the conventionalist (or deliberative) model practices persist or at least how hybridization occurs through an adaptation of individualizing practices to R&D specificities (for example, an individualized remuneration indexed to patent filings).

Before describing the HRM practices most frequently observed in R&D today in detail (in section 4.2), it would be important to highlight how changes in the organization of R&D have enhanced the development of specific HRM practices. Thus, the intensification of project organization since the late 1980s called for a reflection on HRM methods adapted to these particular forms (temporary, matrix, multidisciplinary) of work organization.

4.1.3. Project organization: a necessary source of adaptation of HRM in R&D

Project organization, which is now common in R&D activities (see Chapter 2), suggests the recognition of the need for specific HRM practices. The latter are a combination of recognition, on the one hand, of project mode specificities, which are of course not reserved for R&D and can now concern a wide range of business activities, and R&D specificities, on the other hand.

In so far as the quality of human resources is a prerequisite for project performance, especially R&D, and where the project is itself a vector of skills development¹, HRM has to give attention to the management of people involved in projects. Its traditional practices were destabilized because of projects’ characteristics disrupting the classical (hierarchical, vertical and functional) organization within which and according to which HRM was built. Indeed:

• – projects involve, to varying extents, dual project/profession authority;
• – they question the authority of the professions, embodied in classical functional structures.

Studies then focused on the issues raised by this new organizational form and its potential impact on HRM, as well as on the relevant responses that the latter could provide to these specific situations of temporary assignment of individuals to cross-functional projects. These include Baron [BAR 99], Paraponaris [PAR 00], Garel et al. [GAR 03b], Zannad [ZAN 08], and Loufrani-Fedida [LOU 11].

As Garel et al. [GAR 03b] have shown, the project structure raises multiple issues for HRM, including the recruitment of project managers, training, evaluation, remuneration and career management. These issues are discussed in the next section, as the different HRM practices currently observed in R&D are reviewed.

4.2.1. Strategic HR planning

HRM should not only react to the needs and difficulties encountered as and when they arise. It is important, although difficult, that it tries to anticipate their occurrence, in order to have the necessary time to implement appropriate actions that help, to the greatest possible extent, to avoid situations of mismatch between the organization’s needs (specifically in terms of staffing needs and aspired competences) and the actually available resources. Efforts are being made towards applying a strategic planning approach for R&D activities. Such an approach mostly concerns, large companies, however, as the smaller ones have more difficulties in anticipating their future. Large companies have embarked on major projects in order to anticipate future critical competencies. Orange, for example, tries to predict what impact would environmental, strategic, organizational, as well as technological choices of the company have on the R&D professions (in terms of staffing needs and required competences). This work is carried out by both HR departments and R&D management.

Strategic HR planning aims to identify the jobs and competencies to be strengthened, developed or upgraded, as well as those whose downsizing has to be prepared. The result of this is differing decisions that mobilize the whole range of HRM tools. When there is a need to increase the number of employees or to develop new competencies, in anticipation of the expansion of a market, successful innovation and the rise of certain technologies (for example, digital technology, Big Data or artificial intelligence), various HR practices will be implemented: recruitment, incoming mobilities, training, etc. Other decisions can be taken that do not fall within the scope of HRM. Such is the case with external growth transactions, when company takeovers make it possible to appropriate new product portfolios, markets, patents and R&D teams. The same is true regarding the use of outsourcing and service providers who offer particular expertise. Indeed, business service providers are growing, and some companies such as Altran Technologies are offering engineering and innovation solutions.

Companies may also face more difficult configurations, where staffing and skills needs are declining, which requires downward adjustments of existing resources. This is the case when products are abandoned, markets divested and expertise outsourced or when technologies become obsolete. HRM then has to initiate actions (outgoing mobilities, new skills training, VAE, voluntary departures, etc.) as soon as possible to prepare re-qualification and re-training for the concerned employees and to accompany the possible departures.

However, deploying a truly strategic planning is a difficult objective, regardless of the company’s functions and professions, but perhaps even more so in the area of R&D. Thus, in an uncertain environment that is subject to rapid changes, instrumental approaches are often unable to predict possible market upheavals as well as future technological advancements (internally and externally), including the opportunities they can create in terms of innovation.

4.2.2. Recruitment and integration

4.2.3. Assignments and mobility

4.2.4. Individual assessment

4.2.5. Remuneration

Research work is known to bring intrinsic satisfaction (accomplishment, esteem, autonomy, skills development). However, on the one hand, not all R&D professionals devote most of their activity to research, and, on the other hand, the image of the disinterested researcher is largely mythical. Even if such a stereotype is internalized by young scientists when they enter this professional path, they do not withstand the material constraints that increase with age. The comparison that R&D professionals make with managers in other functions, who are often less qualified but better paid than them, generates frustrations and claims. As with other worker communities, remuneration is an important mobilizing factor (although not the only one) and it should not be neglected.

To meet these expectations, in addition to the fixed job remuneration, companies develop methods aimed at recognizing individual contributions. The introduction of variable performance incentives, within a set salary range for each job, is the most common action.

Another form of differentiated individual compensation is the remuneration for employee inventions. It is mandatory in France following a 1990 law and could take various forms according to the company strategy (see the example of Air Liquide in the box below).

Emphasis on individual reward remains dominant, although there are corporate managers who today could adopt Joly’s [JOL 97, p. 82] formula: “The concept of the individual researcher who independently produces ingenious ideas is probably only a popular imagery”.

Some companies have established collective bonuses, with a broad range of practices depending on whether the considered collective is the entire enterprise (with bonuses reproducing the logic of profit-sharing systems), R&D department or the project team. Thus, the rise of project organization has led to questioning of the relevance of an extreme individualization of remuneration. Indeed, the latter proves to be clearly inadequate, and even a source of perverse effects, given the significance of the collaborative nature of work, as well as the importance of the solidarity between project actors and their joint pursuit of project goals. Project organization also raises the issue of the temporality of remuneration: while it is logical to show recognition at the end of projects’ key phases, the latter are not specifically connected to the periods set by the HR department for the award of bonuses. The establishment of team bonuses paid at the end of a successful phase of a project shows a certain adaptation of remuneration methods to R&D specificities. They remain, however, a rather rare practice.

Thus, regarding remuneration, as for other HRM practices, companies attempt to combine the consideration of R&D professionals’ specificities, on the one hand, and general harmonization, on the other. This concern is at the origin of the “dual ladder” tool, which aims to propose an equal level of remuneration for technical experts and hierarchical managers. Since the dual ladder is considered primarily as a career management tool, we will present it in the next section.

4.2.6. Careers

4.2.6.2. From the accreditation to supervise research to the dual ladder

The careers of industrial researchers have for a long time been modeled on those of academic researchers and, although this is less the case nowadays, there is still some porosity between these professional worlds. In France, some of the most “sought-after” profiles still prepare and present the HDR (accreditation to supervise research), which is defended in front of a panel composed mostly of academics. Thus, judgment on the value of work and individual competencies is externalized. It is fully carried out within the science and technology sphere, without the interference of managerial, economic, industrial or administrative logics.

Some companies have heard these expectations regarding expertise recognition from people who aspire to develop their skills and continue their R&D activities. The issues of compensating and reinforcing the loyalty of these experts are convergent with the challenges of strengthening and developing the expertise on which the company builds and which supports its innovation strategy.

Managerial tools such as the dual ladder career model (see Figure 4.1) attempt to value expertise and experts. Alongside the managerial path, a scientific and technical path is created that formalizes recognition and career progression for R&D professionals who distinguish themselves through their expertise. Such expertise is judged by an ad hoc committee, fully or partially composed of peers generally from within but sometimes also from outside of the company. In terms of remuneration, the salary levels are generally similar for an expert and a manager positioned at the same level on their respective career paths.

The dual ladder has gradually become the reference tool in experts’ career management in industrial enterprises. It is however not devoid of difficulties and limitations. Thus, the expertise path that brings together the technical elite, highly selective, is ultimately undervalued, while the management path, though valued, is not very open to researchers [DUH 05]. The box below develops some of these limitations, and it should be noted that, despite the development of expert recognition practices (whereof the dual ladder is emblematic but not the only example), this remains a serious issue for HRM and an ever-existing challenge in R&D.

4.2.7. Competence management and training

Competence management has been the subject of much attention in recent years. Though we can question its relevance in activities where knowledge is largely held by systems, conveyors of formalized processes, it is of paramount importance in R&D. In this function, learning takes a long time and is carried out in close connection with peers, within and outside the company. This situation raises the question of what the company can offer to highly qualified professionals, knowing that post-school learning is carried out according to an alchemy that goes well beyond management systems.

The HR function has thus tended to invest mostly in areas that are outside the scope of the scientific and technical field, to establish new training offerings in R&D around the development of behavioral skills, raising awareness on the company’s strategic issues and reinforcing the capacity to cooperate with the other functions of the company. Thus, many large high-tech companies have set up training programs for their technical experts from different functions of the company and particularly R&D (see the example of Safran in the box below).

Although the HR function brings added value by developing new extra-scientific training, it also tries to act upon the development of core competencies. Internal and external training is offered to enhance and maintain scientific and technical skills. The external training from private or public organizations is mobilized to this end. Equipment suppliers can also be crucial training actors as they provide essential knowledge on how to use highly specific equipment.

The development of digital technology is a major evolution and training services must adapt to it. This represents a promising solution for designing an offer adapted to R&D needs and, in particular, for personalizing training according to individual needs and aspirations.

HR managers should also strive to create the environment and conditions that encourage R&D professionals to provide internal training for their colleagues (their R&D peers or other professionals), in order to facilitate knowledge-sharing and mutual understanding between professions.

To summarize, the training of project members raises a number of specific issues. Strictly speaking, “being a project manager” is not a profession, even if some companies have created project career streams in order to recognize project managers and also to maintain the attractiveness of these crucial but complex roles which are not always “profitable” in terms of traditional careers. A professionalization of project managers is also observed. The Project Management Institute has established a reference system for training and certification of project managers that is required for major international projects. However, such training programs are still very rare and are often specialized around specific projects (computer science, construction, etc.) or project management methods. The action trainings could be very interesting as they offer project managers the opportunity to reflect on their own actions and management practices, supported by a coach, in order to improve their performance. This is done simultaneously with their regular work as a project manager. The difficulty of implementing such action training lies in the intense pace of projects, which does not promote reflexivity and provides limited time to participate in training courses which are, however, valuable learning and knowledge-sharing opportunities.

In order to adapt the training actions to this evolution, the HR managers should reflect on the specificities of R&D professionals and consequently adapt the methods of their training. This requires the training of managers to be quite open and proactive in the analysis of the learning process. It is important to consider and enact the “natural” resources of knowledge offered by the R&D ecosystem to facilitate and develop these learning processes. Thus, digital technology should not only be considered in terms of the development of e-learning tools ensured by companies or external providers, but also (and above all) as a means of intensifying and diversifying the modes of connecting R&D professionals with the external environment and epistemic communities including practices that enable valuable learning. The R&D professionals should therefore be given time for these learning opportunities and these practices should not be considered as “leisure” time. It should be the same for participation in external seminars and symposiums, as well as for reading academic and professional journals or monitoring patent databases (which are now easily accessible online but are not free of charge).

Focus must be redirected to the importance of the missions and projects to which R&D professionals are assigned (see also section 4.2.2.1), as these assignments would have crucial impact on development, maintenance, renewal, expansion or even exhaustion of the core competencies. Though these decisions do not generally fall under the responsibility of HRM professionals, it is nevertheless essential that they consider these issues in order to integrate the latter in staffing decisions. The partnerships with line and project managers on these issues are essential, and would help HR function to better respond to the challenges of R&D and to interact with technical and scientific staff in a more comprehensive way.

4.3.1. Moving beyond an instrumental approach and adapting to the diversity of contexts

There is enough literature to affirm that HRM must consider the real and precise contexts in which it operates to provide pragmatic responses that would be adapted to them [PIC 13]. Nonetheless, and despite all the criticisms that it has been subjected to, the instrumental model of HRM [BRA 93], which is based on the application of standardized programs of universal scope, still remains largely dominant today. Under this model, it would be up to HRM specialists to decide what is good for R&D professionals.

However, first of all, this requires critical reflection on how to adapt HRM management to the company’s innovation strategy. This strategy as well as the modalities of the innovation process would vary significantly from one company to another according to the type of innovation (radical or incremental) and its pace. What are the individual and collective competencies needed to address these strategic issues? What are the means to develop these competencies (internal development or external acquisition)? For example, companies pursuing intensive innovation strategies, which require the ability to rely on scientific intrapreneurs in R&D [GAS 07], can hardly derive satisfaction from a dual ladder type of career management, as it will not respond to the aspirations of these individuals.

It is therefore necessary to adjust the HRM practices to the characteristics of the context that each company encounters. This requires HRM professionals to adopt design thinking, which will help them to go beyond the pre-existing tools. It also requires strengthening cooperation between HR and R&D managers, so that HRM professionals are able to design practices adapted to the particularities of innovation strategies, R&D organizations and the aspirations of R&D personnel.

4.3.2. Renewing (or reinventing) HRM in open innovation models

Open innovation practices displace some of the R&D activities outside of the firm, which requires the redefinition of roles within internal R&D (see Chapters 1 and 2). These changes raise a series of questions.

As the roles of internal actors will continue to evolve in a direction that is not fully obvious today, what will be the new challenges in terms of HRM of such roles? And what responses will HRM be able to provide? How will the recruitment, assessment and promotion criteria be adjusted to work transformations? How could the organization accompany the acquisition of new skills required by redefined roles? What could boost the motivation of professionals whose work content and environment are in permanent change?

In addition, HRM can no longer limit itself to the intra-organizational level. It should also build on the talent that can be found in the business ecosystem and that can participate greatly in the innovation process. What could the HRM actions be within the innovation spaces that go beyond the firm’s boundaries (enabled by cooperations, partnerships, mobilities, etc.)? Some studies (namely Calamel et al. [CAL 11]) have focused on the consequences of the creation of competitive clusters on HR management in France. They point out the challenges of the development of new inter-organizational HRM practices that need to be addressed at the level of the territory: collective bonuses on collaborative projects, staff exchanges, common training programs, etc. Calamel et al. [CAL 11] also highlight the challenges that represent such innovative practices and their difficult adoption by traditional HRM. Much work still has to be done towards inventing an entirely new HRM, which is adapted to these atypical configurations that are becoming more frequent and can take a variety of forms.

Considering a range of open innovation practices, Petroni et al. [PET 12] observed how these practices transform the organizational structures of R&D and its staff’s management methods (see Table 4.2). The open innovation strategy leads to the adoption of matrix or network structures, instead of conventional functional structures. It emphasizes the integration of external or multidisciplinary knowledge, rather than the enhancement of scientific sector-specific expertise. Thus, the companies will need the individuals with “T-profiles” (T men) who, beyond possessing specific skills in their scientific or technical area, would also have a good knowledge of related fields. In this regard, mobility management, organized both internally (differentiated career paths) and externally (temporary assignments with academic laboratories or jobs within subsidiaries), is a key practice.

In the context of open innovation, managing expertise cannot be limited to managing a body of experts and internal expertise. The challenge also involves coordinating internal and external resources, by going beyond the usual HRM and expert management organizational framework (see Chapter 3 for avenues on the subject). The objective of the company is to ensure, through the consideration of the environment and the major developments in scientific and strategic spheres, the flexibility of the expertise on which to rely on.

Looking at the multifaceted nature of open innovation practices and the change they bring for management structures and methods, we can see the enormity of work to be done!

4.3.3. Going beyond individualized HRM by integrating the collective dimension

Finally, we will focus on the importance of group dynamics in the creation and dissemination of knowledge. Whether it is a project-based structure [GAR 03b], or the maintenance and development of expertise within specialized professions [LEL 14], the collective dimension seems to be paramount in terms of both competence development and expertise recognition. The challenge is thus to find the right balance between the collective and individual dimensions. However, there is a tendency to neglect collective competence in current HRM systems. We thus propose to overpass the individualization trend, by implementing practices and management tools aimed at promoting and supporting collective expertise and collective competencies rather than enhancing individualizing practices. The following chapter proposes the detailed analysis of such practices and tools.

Let us add in consonance with the previous section that this call for a more collective and shared HRM should be considered within the current context of open innovation. For HRM, this would also involve projecting itself beyond the strict boundaries of the organization. What a challenging and also passionate agenda for HRM for the years to come!