本文將就馬其頓等人對英國的運輸行業中小型企業生存的研究dissertation（2003）進行論述。僅僅用有趣和結構規整來評價這一dissertation是不夠的。本文會運用批判性分析法來分析馬其頓等人的研究dissertation（2003），文章將分析其概念，研究方法，主要發現和實際應用。

這篇文章研究了英國運輸行業中的勞動力缺乏問題，同時也研究了這一問題對于小型企業的影響。在當時的研究背景時間來看，勞動力缺乏被認為是這一產業的最大問題。七家家族運輸企業中，卡車司機的招聘和退休在很長一段時期內是分離開的。

在兩年的周期內，馬其頓等人運用了半結構式訪談來進行他們的研究。通過數據收集的結果被用于論證他們的論點，那就是“人力資源實踐對于維持小型企業的繼續生存是必要的”（2003:5）。這代表著對作者所采用的資源基礎理論框架的修正。假設經營者依靠那些深刻理解這一產業的支持的不正規的招聘方法，并且用本地的勞動力市場來反駁這一論點。

In this paper it will be argued that the research on survival of small firms in the United Kingdom (UK) road haulage industry by Marchington et al. (2003) while interesting and well-structured is perhaps too restricted. This argument will be developed using a critical analysis of Marchington et al.’s (2003) paper analyzing its concepts, research methodology, main findings and practical implications.

The article studies the issue of labour scarcity within the UK road haulage industry and how it impacts on small firms. Labour scarcity at the time of the study was deemed the industry’s biggest problem. The recruitment and retention processes of lorry drivers from seven family owned road haulage companies were dissected over a period of time.

Marchington et al. executed their study using semi-structured interviews over a two year period. The results from the data collection were used to formulate their argument that “a minimum set of table stakes (HR practices) is necessary for the continued survival of small firms” (2003:5). This represented a modification of the Resource Based View theory (RBV) which the authors used as a framework of analysis. The hypothesis that owner-managers are dependent on informal methods of recruitment supported by a deep comprehension of the industry and the local labour market was used to defend this argument.

The research findings indicated that these small firms possessed an “organisational process advantage” which has been developed in a shrewd and discerning way to allow their continuous existence. In conclusion, the authors recognised that the RBV while useful needs to be extended to include small firm industries which do not form goals of achieving sustained competitive advantages or attaining industrial leadership.

Marchington et al. agreed that the RBV can be a useful framework for analysis in a bid to re-emphasise its relevance in strategic management. The authors agreed to this even after suggesting that the RBV is not straightforwardly applicable in practice because its concepts are not easily measureable. Marchington et al. employed a well-structured, balanced analysis of the RBV highlighting both its strengths and weaknesses to make their argument valid.#p#分頁標題#e#

The RBV, according to Barney (1991), states that there are four key attributes that a resource must possess in order to yield a sustainable competitive advantage. A resource must be: valuable (worth something), rare or unique, imperfectly mobile (cannot be easily sold or traded) and non-substitutable (is not easily copied). The fifth attribute of a resource being appropriable was added later by Coff (1997) and Kamoche (1996) who believed that profits generated from valuable resources should be appropriated to the company’s shareholders (Marchington et al. 2003:6).

Marchington et al. detailed some of the criticisms of the RBV including the work of Boxall and Purcell (2000, 2003) who claimed that the RBV places too much emphasis on the differences between firms and disregards their similarities as sources of competitive advantages. Oliver (1997) suggested that the RBV focuses on internal resources and ignores the social context in which resources are selected. This limits its applicability. A major methodological criticism not mentioned by the authors is the tautological argument. According to Priem and Butler (2001), Barney (1991) termed competitive advantage as a value-creating strategy that is based on resources that are, among other characteristics, valuable. They suggested that this reasoning was termed as being circular and therefore operationally invalid.

However, the most relevant weakness outlined by Marchington et al. concerned the application of the RBV ideas in the field of Human Resource Management (HRM). The authors questioned the RBV’s application to industries where firms rapidly go out of business as with small firms. Marchington et al. have recognised that the RBV does not consider organisations that are not seeking competitive advantage or industry leadership, both of which the RBV actually argues for. Therefore the authors proposed that the RBV theory can be modified to include these organizations by depicting that “resources that are valuable, rare, imperfectly imitable and non-substitutable are needed merely to survive and achieve satisfactory performance,” (Marchington et al. 2003:9). They then used this modified version of the RBV to develop their argument. Basically, while supporting the work of the RBV, the authors believed that further research and development needs to be conducted to refine the theory and make it more applicable to small firm industries.

Digressing from RBV literature, the paper also emphasized the various problems associated with the scarcity of lorry drivers in the haulage industry. Even though labour sources were abundant, recruitment and retention formed a major problem for these small firms. Complications ranged from the challenge of finding “quality drivers” to the unwillingness of qualified (license carrying) individuals not wanting to cope with the various hassles of driving.

The use of “internal labour markets” involved the recruitment of young school leavers who were able to grow through the ranks. However the constraints associated with cost as well as pressures from competition inhibited the use of this method (Marchington et al. 2003:13). Also, the use of agencies was not embraced by the owner-managers of the focal firms due to their concerns about competence, trustworthiness and reliability of agency drivers.#p#分頁標題#e#

In an industry with high turnover and where suitable labour was hard to find, the owner-managers became dependent on informal methods of recruitment. The authors referred to Marlow and Pattons’ (1993) analysis stating that informal recruitment methods are favoured rather than formal methods because it provides a more comprehensive profile of the prospective employee. However, the article does not provide any arguments against these methods. In the original study of recruitment in small firms, Carroll et al. (1999) provided two main disadvantages of informal recruitment methods. Firstly, they may leave a pool of suitable recruits untapped and secondly, they may leave the firm open to accusations of indirect discrimination against disadvantaged groups. This could have been mentioned by the authors.

The authors also stated that there was a strong desire to retain family control to allow for succession to future generations (Marchington et al. 2003:12). Problems with employing this strategy were not stressed in the literature review. According to Reid and Adams (2001:310) “Family businesses may be pressured at times to employ, promote or end employment for close or extended family members. It is extremely difficult for a firm to practise HRM objectively with family members.” Reid and Adams (2001) also cited Taguiri and Davis (1992), Holland and Boulton (1984) and Beckhard and Dyer (1983) who all support the view that relationships between the management of the firm and close family increase the complexity of organisational and management problems.

Marchington et al. quoted the Road Haulage and Distribution Training Council (RHTDC) Workforce Development Plan to emphasize the severity of labour scarcity in the industry. However the authors also indicated that there were many more people with an LGV (Large Goods Vehicle) driving licence than there are jobs in the industry (Marchington et al. 2003: 5). Their research also indicated that owner managers were not partial to employing labour available from agencies. Owner-managers as previously specified were geared towards maintaining family ownership. This contradiction in the literature raises the point of whether the problem of labour scarcity exists as a result of a shortage of lorry drivers or due to the owner-mangers being risk averse.

To analyze the problem of labour scarcity and the survival of small firms, Marchington et al. used semi-structured interviews with “owner-managers, the managers or directors responsible for the recruitment of staff, inspection of company documentation and, where possible, discussions with drivers themselves,” (Marchington 2003: 10). The survey questions were primarily focused on the phenomenon of labour scarcity, firm growth and the recruitment and retention method.

Analyzing the issue of labour scarcity within the UK haulage industry through the utilisation of the RBV with data from two phases can be described as a detailed approach. However, issues concerning the adopted research method has led to the fact that maybe it should be adjusted.#p#分頁標題#e#

The main issue with the authors’ research method surrounded its sample. Marchington et al. failed to obtain a large enough sample to be representative of the industry as a whole. Only seven out of sixty thousand road haulage firms (Marchington et al. 2003:10) were taken as the sample. According to Esterby-Smith et al. (1991), an adequate sample size should be at least double of its finite population correction which was not applied here in this study. The larger the sample size the lower the probability of error. (Saunders et al, 2000). Therefore, there is likely to be more errors with a minute sample size.

Secondly, the research only covers a single business sector and geographic area. The samples of road haulage companies are all family owned and located in North West England. A suitable sampling frame should be random and unbiased (Saunders et al, 2000). It was noticed that Marchington et al. based their research on the study of family owned businesses. Statistics provided by the authors indicated that 87% of the industry is small firms. However they did not indicate how much of that 87% are family owned businesses. According to Reid and Adams (2001:311), “family businesses should be regarded as a special case regardless of size, as the long term commitment of the CEO and the family members involved in management require the balance of not only management but ownership.” Since this study of Marchington et al. concerned the UK haulage industry, there should have been random samples all over UK and should have included both family and non-family owned businesses. The reliability and validity of these results must be questioned with the errors in sampling and there is doubt whether these results are transferable to the whole road haulage industry in the UK.

Another key observation made was that Marchington et al. did not specify the number of managers or drivers interviewed. Interviews were concentrated mainly on owner-managers and drivers ‘where possible’. Therefore most of the data retrieved from these interviews would have been based on the managers’ perceptions of managing their family owned enterprises. Again this posits whether the authors’ findings can be transferred to non-family owned businesses within the industry and in other small firm industries.

Lastly, there are concerns about the use of semi-structured interviews on small and medium sized family owned firms. Under the semi-structured interview, the interviewee may not have a “clearly articulated view of the answers to the questions posed, or may not wish to divulge sensitive information” (Esterby-Smith et al, 1991:75). Data such as the number of drivers, vehicles and annual sales turnover might be more appropriately collected through other methods like questionnaires (Esterby-Smith et al, 1991). This method may have been more appropriate and would have enabled a larger sample size to be surveyed. It may have even proved more cost effective.#p#分頁標題#e#

The results derived from Marchington et al.’s research involved what was needed for small firms to survive. Firstly, they were able to support their hypothesis that “in small firms, there is less interest in growing the business beyond a certain size” as the owner managers attested to this. Secondly, the authors’ data supported their conclusion that” these firms in a search for a stable, trustworthy workforce developed organizational networks to assist them.” Finally, these networks together with the owners’ knowledge of the industry and labour markets formed a crucial reason for these firms continued existence. This “organizational process advantage” fulfils the RBV criteria supporting the initial argument of resources needed for survival by firms in high turnover industries.

The restricted methodological approach of Marchington et al. makes discussions of their findings quite challenging. However, their finding of small firms’ preference for informal recruitment methods can be re-affirmed by Kotey and Slade (2005) and Behrend (2007) who emphasized that small firms have less formal HRM practices and recruitment activities and ultimately should be seen as a ‘social process.’

Nonetheless, as examined in research methods, the type of sample and sample size implemented raises the question of how applicable these findings are to other small firms in the road haulage industry and other industries as well. The study of solely family firms and the limited sample size may mean that the authors’ conclusions are non-generalizable.

Further studies on this topic need to be aware of the narrow research method applied and should question whether the findings can be extrapolated. Therefore additional research needs to be conducted both on the use of the RBV and recruitment and retention methods in small firms.

In conclusion, Marchington et al. has outlined the problem of labour scarcity within the UK road haulage industry. The authors presented a well-balanced analysis on the use of the RBV. The modification of the theory was well applied to develop their argument in the small firm industry. Conversely, lacking literature on the disadvantages of informal recruitment and an inadequate research method inhibits the applicability of the final results.