A critique of the research proves that the study is well directed so as to arrive at the hypothesis and thus contains remarkable strength needed for an authoritative study. However, certain oddities and speculation in the way towards the findings point to specific weaknesses of the research in methods and approaches used. The empirical study is based on a well-defined theoretical framework and its finding that approves the merit of the hypothesis. The loose ends of the study result mainly derive from the inadequacy of the relevant data in general, and that of the Netherlands in particular, where sociological factors limit the findings of the study. The speculative nature of the finding towards the end of the study constrains the appeal of the empirical result.
There is a great relevance to this type of research and the objectives of the study prove this point. The research contributes to the study of complementarities among HR dimensions and the selection of Ireland and the Netherlands for data collection, where no such studies are conducted, also proves to be its strength. The introduction states the hypothesis clearly and illustrates the significance of the study. The hypothesis is logically presented, leading to the empirical analysis of the study. As the authors of Research Paper Handbook instruct the researcher, “Your thesis will show the special nature of your paper.” (Lester Jr & Lester Sr 2005). The paper clearly establishes the thesis that “the high performance HR management system is the most effective form of the HR management in enhancing the performance of the employees,” with the research method used. It also succeeds in emphasizing that “this superior effectiveness in part is derived from a complementarities among the five HR dimensions.” (Horgan & Muhlau 2006). The clarification added for the ineffectiveness of the theory in the Netherlands almost satisfies the finding of the study. The authors provide relevant reasons