Impact of human factor management on company productivity: the moderating effect of digitalization

Ulises, Kuong Rodríguez Jorge; José, Arana Barbier Pablo Article Impact of human factor management on company productivity: the moderating effect of digitalization Cogent Business & Management Provided in Cooperation with: Taylor & Francis Group Suggested Citation: Ulises, Kuong Rodríguez Jorge; José, Arana Barbier Pablo (2024) : Impact of human factor management on company productivity: the moderating effect of digitalization, Cogent Business & Management, ISSN 2331-1975, Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, Vol. 11, Iss. 1, pp. 1-20, https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2371064 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/326375 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Cogent Business & Management ISSN: 2331-1975 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/oabm20 Impact of human factor management on company productivity: the moderating effect of digitalization Kuong Rodríguez Jorge Ulises & Arana Barbier Pablo José To cite this article: Kuong Rodríguez Jorge Ulises & Arana Barbier Pablo José (2024) Impact of human factor management on company productivity: the moderating effect of digitalization, Cogent Business & Management, 11:1, 2371064, DOI: 10.1080/23311975.2024.2371064 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2371064 © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published online: 08 Jul 2024. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 2330 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 5 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oabm20 ManageMent | ReseaRch aRticle Cogent Business & ManageMent 2024, VoL. 11, no. 1, 2371064 Impact of human factor management on company productivity: the moderating effect of digitalization Kuong Rodríguez Jorge Ulises and arana Barbier Pablo José CentRuM Catolica graduate Business school, Pontificia universidad Catolica del Peru, Lima, Perú; ABSTRACT the purpose of this research was to study the impact of human factor management on company productivity, with digitalization as a moderating variable, with emphasis on medium and large companies in the services sector, in lima, Peru. this research has a quantitative approach and cross-sectional design. the technique used was structural equation modeling with the maximum likelihood estimation method. the study was carried out with a sample of 330 people from the banking sector in the city of lima, in Peru. For statistical analysis, confirmatory Factorial analysis, and hypothesis testings, the sPPs aMOs tool was used. a conceptual model based on Dynamic capability View theory was developed that allows us to better understand the phenomenon of the impact of human factor management on the productivity of companies, under the moderating effect of digitalization. as the main conclusions of this research, it was found that there is a positive relationship between the human factor management and the company productivity; likewise, it was found that digitalization has a moderating effect in the relationship between human factor management and productivity, with the exception of the human factor performance appraisal. these findings contribute to the existing literature and debate, as well as, allow to determine which dimensions of human factor management can be enhanced under the impact of a digital environment, thus contributing better to business performance. Introduction human factor is the set of knowledge, competence, attitude and behavior embedded in an individual (Rastogi, 2002), and is a key element in improving productivity and maintaining the competitive advantage of a company (schulz, 1993). companies must apply appropriate management practices to people, in order to take advantage of their possibilities and achieve an advantage through the human factor, in order to achieve better performance to respond to turbulent environments (turulja & Bajgoric, 2018). in today’s highly variable and competitive environment, advanced digital tools enable companies to reduce costs, increase productivity, improve product development, achieve faster time to market, add value to products through dedicated services, and improve customer focus, in various elements of the value chain (Buer et al., 2021; Del guidice etal., 2021). industry 4.0 (i 4.0) refers to the fourth industrial revolution generated by the adoption of digital technologies in business and society (Urbach & Röglinger, 2019). industry 4.0 emerges simultaneously with the fusion of technologies in a digital ecosystem, and the terms digitalization and industry 4.0 are often used concomitantly (hirsch-Kreinsen, 2016). the current phenomenon of accelerated digitalization of the i4.0 economy generates greater productivity, connectivity and various transformations in workforce skills (androniceanu et al., 2020). the concept of industry 4.0 is an opportunity for the development and improvement of competitiveness, but there are also complications for the management of the human factor such as the reduction of creativity, which can occur due to the automation of machines and the disappearance of the human factor in production © 2024 the author(s). Published by informa uK Limited, trading as taylor & Francis group. CONTACT Kuong Rodríguez Jorge ulises [email protected].pe CentRuM Catolica graduate Business school, Pontificia universidad Catolica del Peru, Jr. Daniel alomía Robles 125, urb. Los Álamos de Monterrico, santiago de surco, 15023 Lima, Perú. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2371064 this is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. the terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 12 January 2024 Revised 29 March 2024 accepted 14 June 2024 KEYWORDS human factor management; business performance; productivity; digitalization; industry 4.0 REVIEWING EDITOR antonio Montero-navarro, Universidad Rey Juan carlos, spain SUBJECTS Business, Management and accounting; industry & industrial studies; information technology 2 K. R. JORge Ulises anD a. B. PaBlO JOsÉ technology (horváth & szerb, 2018). therefore, managing the human factor in the era of digitalization represents one of the most important challenges, since it requires highly qualified personnel at all levels (herceg etal., 2020; Khanzode et al., 2021). in the last 30 years, multiple research studies have been carried out between the relationship: people management and company performance, proving that there is a positive relationship between them, and this link continues to be the subject of study (Dukić Mijatović et al., 2020). in the current context, the role of digitalization in company performance has increasingly increased, since digitalization is a profound phenomenon, with strong implications in all areas (Matt et al., 2015). While there are a growing number of research contributions on the performance consequences of hRM, the main findings fail to offer consistent and compelling evidence on hRM performance in a digital environment (theres & strohmeier, 2023). the context of the cOViD-19 pandemic, has significantly accelerated the pace of digitalization of hR processes (Zavyalova et al., 2022). Organizations invest in human resource management systems to improve employee productivity by increasing the use of technology (lempinen & Rajala, 2014). Because digital transformation is replacing existing skill sets at an increasing rate, human factor specialists are required to accept and embrace the transformation, as well as develop their capacity to adapt to this new landscape (scholz, 2017), this is why the biggest challenge of i4.0 seems not to be technology, but people (ejsmont, 2021). therefore, appropriate introduction of digital tools into personnel management systems can be the key to successful business operations in a modern information environment. this is a new world for hR technologies and project teams, which will open new opportunities to transform the impact of the human factor on business (savastano etal., 2019). there is a paucity of research on workplace digitalization and its implications for implementation in organizations, particularly in relation to its impact on employee outcomes (nguyen etal., 2024). there is a need to proactively identify and address challenges hindering the adoption of digital hRM practices to accelerate the process of digitalization of hRM (chapano etal., 2023). Literature review and hypotheses development human factor management was defined by Boselie (2010) as the relationship that exists between employees and the organization. is the process of managing employees who use other resources to achieve organizational objectives (schuler & MacMillan, 1984). it has been determined through empirical work that there are four dominant functions of human factor management: (a) recruitment and selection, (b) performance appraisal, (c) training, and (d) compensations (evans, 2003; Fombrun et al., 1984; scarbrough, 2003), and these are the dimensions that were adopted in this research. Recruitment and selection is the organizationally articulated proposal, with theoretical and practical concepts, to search for employees, encourage them to apply and select them, with the objective of harmonizing the values, interests, expectations and competencies of people with the characteristics and demands of the position and the organization (armstrong, 2009), according to Boselie et al. (2005) during this process, the right person who is selected for the required knowledge and qualifications will be assigned to the appropriate task position to reduce costs and maximize benefits. Performance appraisal can be defined as the continuous process of observing and evaluating employee performance against a predetermined work-related standard (Boselie et al., 2005), is a basic element of human factor management used as a mechanism to improve employee performance, provide feedback to employees, and providing the basis for many decisions (cummings & Worley, 2000). training is defined as the delivery of useful skills, ideas and knowledge through teaching, to be able to perform practical work in a qualified manner, training is the continuous effort and attempt designed to improve the skill and performance of the employee (Mahony et al., 2001). compensations are the organizationally articulated proposal, with theoretical and practical concepts, to reward the performance and competence of employees through remuneration and incentives (Bohlander & snell, 2009). Kahn (1990) stated that as employees perceive that their organization provides an adequate compensation package for their work, their level of commitment will be higher. Productivity as a general concept is defined as the extent to which a company efficiently performs its basic functions (Wall et al., 2004). For measurement purposes, perceived labor productivity will be used in this research, which is the productivity of an organization affected by certain characteristics and behaviors of the worker, in which psychological and psychosocial processes are immersed (saari & Judge, cOgent BUsiness & ManageMent 3 2004). in this research, the focus was on perceived labor productivity for two reasons: (a) because changes in productivity related to digitalization are difficult to capture using economic measures, since such measures can cover a wide range of organizational activities and uses of it (Brynjolfsson, 1993; Brynjolfsson & hitt, 2003), and (b) productivity is a multidimensional construct that is difficult to evaluate using a quantitative statistic, such as task performance (De lone & Mc lean, 2003). Digitalization is defined as the socio-technical process of leveraging digitalized products or systems to develop new organizational procedures, business models, or commercial offerings (saarikko et al., 2020). While digital transformation introduces many positive perspectives, uncritically insisting on the change can cause negative effects and jeopardize the achievement of optimal results (Barišić et al., 2021). Hypothesis and conceptual model Recruitment and selection and productivity Personnel selectivity is an important human resource practice that directly and indirectly affects organizational outcomes such as productivity and sales (Katou & Budhwar, 2007). appropriate selection or staffing is one of the most important practices for business performance, the appropriate selection of employees helps organizations grow, generate better productivity, quality and greater profitability (chadwick & li, 2018). Furthermore, the use of selection techniques associated with high predictive validity can facilitate the detection of highly productive employees and the optimization of person-job-organization fit (hunter & hunter, 1984). Based on the aforementioned, the following hypothesis is proposed: hypothesis 1a (h1a): there is a positive relationship between the human factor recruitment and selection and productivity. Performance appraisal and productivity When clear and reasonable performance appraisal metrics, standards, and practices are used to develop objectives and provide relevant feedback, it can be helpful to both the individual being appraised and the organization, however, poorly executed performance appraisals can be detrimental to the employee. organizational performance, successful performance appraisals depend on employees and managers working together (larson, 1989). saks (2006) argued that if employees feel that their organization offers benefits based on their performance, which is measured fairly, they will be obligated to the organization and will lead to a higher level of commitment on their part, in addition, the use Performance-related pay has been proposed as a productivity-enhancing mechanism that directs employee behavior in the desired direction. Based on the aforementioned, the following hypothesis is proposed: hypothesis 1b (h1b): there is a positive relationship between the human factor performance appraisal and productivity. Training and productivity studies show a positive impact of human factor training on productivity (Bartel, 1994; Black & lynch, 1996). Bartel (1994) found that investment in training increases productivity. training has been examined as a driver of productivity, both in human factors and economic theory (acemoglu & Pischke, 1998). training seen as a learning process can have a positive economic value because it develops employees’ knowledge and skills, thus improving their productivity (Riley et al., 2017). Providing adequate training to employees can help improve their skills, which will subsequently increase their productivity (Wang et al., 2010). Based on the aforementioned, the following hypothesis is proposed: hypothesis 1c (h1c): there is a positive relationship between human factor training and productivity. Compensations and productivity Offering high wages and benefits such as employee compensation can improve productivity by facilitating both the attraction and retention of a superior workforce (shaw et al., 1998). cozzarin and Jeffrey (2014) found that the largest contributor to work productivity is the employee’s salary. Profit sharing is especially encouraged as an instrument to harmonize the interests of employees, management and 4 K. R. JORge Ulises anD a. B. PaBlO JOsÉ shareholders, and induces greater productivity through the effects on corporate culture, entrepreneurship, group cooperation and mechanisms of social application (shepard & edward, 1994). Kazaz and Ulubeyli (2007) argued that factors that increase employee motivation and productivity include incentive pay, equal pay for workers performing similar tasks, and adequacy of pay. Based on the aforementioned, the following hypothesis is proposed: hypothesis 1d (h1d): there is a positive relationship between human factor compensations and productivity. Moderating effect of digitalization Digitalization has an impact on key aspects for the development of the human factor such as: information, new jobs, internet, technology, training, new skills, automation, communication, innovation, professionals, productivity, artificial intelligence, digitalization, e-contracting, and the internet of things (sima et al., 2020). Digitalization can be the engine for improving processes and products, creating value for customers; furthermore, the use of digital technology can improve staff productivity, with positive effects on the company’s financial performance (Zhou etal., 2021). however, technology transformation can be problematic as well, and may bring obstacles to routine business due to the adaptability of employees; when the company’s capabilities and resources cannot match the level of digitalization, the company will be trapped in the digital paradox, which can even generate negative returns (Kohtamäki et al., 2020). the link between digitalization in general and productivity is clear, however, how digitalization affects productivity is not well understood (atrostic & nguyen, 2005). People management practices are strongly correlated with productivity, and digitalization allows for improvements in performance that can be linked to productivity gains, but this depends on the presence of certain skills and knowledge that require training to take advantage of digital technologies (horváth & szerb, 2018). Digitalization strongly affects human factor practices and procedures, specifically by using human factor information systems, the role of human resources in contributing to the digitization strategy is not sufficiently emphasized (Barišić et al., 2021). Moderation recruitment and selection – productivity the adoption of new technologies and the digitalization of organizational processes have forced the rapid evolution of human factor management practices, requiring the development and adoption of new competencies, new forms of employment and agile recruitment and selection processes (Kagermann, 2015). the use of digital tools in human factor management helps establish a strategy for talent acquisition and redefine recruitment processes by creating a profitable and effective operating model (horváth & szabó, 2019; sima et al., 2020). the increasing use and growth of teleworking has allowed the emergence of alternative employment strategies, as well as the application of a virtual environment in the process of planning, searching, evaluating, selecting and hiring talent (cortellazzo etal., 2019). Research has shown that it tools in human factor management not only help recruit top talent, but also retain them, lead to low recruitment and onboarding costs, and maintain high productivity (colbert et al., 2016). Based on the aforementioned, the following hypothesis is proposed hypothesis 2a (h2a): Digitalization has a moderating effect on the relationship between the human factor recruitment and selection and productivity. Moderation performance appraisal – productivity Due to the effects of digital transformation, human factor management can introduce a results-based performance management system, where employee performance is measured exclusively based on their performance and not on the time spent working (Ulrich et al., 2013; horváth & szabó, 2019). in this sense, and to allow and accommodate rapid technological change and development, organizations are expected to develop procedures and establish practices for a continuous re-evaluation of employee competencies, as well as to introduce new forms of work organization (sakellaridis et al., 2011). Digital cOgent BUsiness & ManageMent 5 transformation allows organizations to introduce performance monitoring technology to track employees’ work performance and the results achieved (li, 2018). the use of digital technology tools allows organizations to better assess workforce requirements, monitor employee performance and productivity, optimize revenue, and reduce operating costs (Ritter & Pedersen, 2020). Based on the aforementioned, the following hypothesis is proposed hypothesis 2b (h2b): Digitalization has a moderating effect on the relationship between human factor performance appraisal and company productivity. Moderation training – productivity the emergence and rapid development of digital technologies, enable organizations to develop new employee skills and competencies, resulting in efficient product optimization and overall improvement in organizational performance and competitiveness (Branca etal., 2020; li, 2018). in carrying out its strategic role, learning and development are an integral part of the contemporary practice of human factor management, referring especially to improving the knowledge and skills of its employees with transferable and specialized skills, thus providing them with competitive advantage and making them more resistant to change (ancarani & Di Mauro, 2018; Ulrich et al., 2013). Based on the aforementioned, the following hypothesis is proposed hypothesis 2c (h2c): Digitalization has a moderating effect on the relationship between human factor training and company productivity. Moderation compensations – productivity compensation is an important function of human factor management that refers to the remuneration system in relation to the work performed, compensation systems must remain in line with the changes, and compensation is now based on performance (llinas & abad, 2020). the demands proposed by i4.0, that is, greater integration between culture and values, stimulated by globalized work practices, encourage employers to change compensation systems for systems based on performance, skill, knowledge, competition and productivity (shamim et al., 2017). Furthermore, human factor management must create monetary and non-monetary incentives for workers who proactively acquire the necessary skills and competencies, thereby decreasing training costs and increasing labor productivity (nair, 2019). Based on the aforementioned, the following hypothesis is proposed: hypothesis 2d (h2d): Digitalization has a moderating effect on the relationship between human factor compensations and productivity. in Figure 1 can see the proposed conceptual Model that graphically collects the relationship between the variables with their hypotheses, based on the support found in the literature review. Theoretical framework Due to changes in the business environment resulting from various types of development trends, such as information technology and business globalization, teece et al. (1997) pointed out that only those companies that have the ability to effectively coordinate and redistribute competencies, as well as internal and external resources to respond timely to changes in the business environment, could be the winners in the global market. they started from the perspective based on Resources Based View resources under a dynamic context, and proposed the Dynamic capability View (DcV) theory, according to which the success of the company depends on its ability to renew competencies to achieve congruence with the changing business environment (teece et al., 1997). Dynamic capabilities are defined as the firm’s abilities to integrate, build and reconfigure competencies, as well as internal and external resources, to 6 K. R. JORge Ulises anD a. B. PaBlO JOsÉ cope with a rapidly changing environment (Wang etal., 2007). in this study, DcV was used since it aims to study the company’s ability to manage its human and technological resources, and thus achieve productivity in a changing and competitive environment such as that generated by digitalization. Furthermore, investments in human capital can increase employee productivity and financial results (Black & lynch, 1996; Pfeffer, 1998; snell & Dean, 1992). Furthermore, investment in people and information technology results in better individual performance, increased organizational productivity, economic development, as well as other social benefits (lynham & cunningham, 2006; nafukho etal., 2004). as the level of human capital increases, people develop more productive means of accomplishing tasks, increasing a firm’s productivity (Black & lynch, 1996). From this perspective, Becker’s human capital theory (1964) was also used, which postulates that human capital investments in the training and education of employees can have a positive economic value, because they develop and nourish knowledge and skills. of these employees, thus improving their productivity. according to this theory, it has been shown that investments in human capital positively influence measures related to productivity (Bartel, 1994; ichniowski et al., 1997; lepak & snell, 1999; sepúlveda, 2010). Methodology given that the phenomenon to be investigated consists of the study of the moderating effect of digitalization in the relationship between the variables management of the human factor and productivity, this research will be carried out with a quantitative approach since results are sought as a result of measurement and deduction, with a certain precision (Zikmund etal., 2010). the design will be non-experimental of the transversal type, since the aim is to observe the phenomenon at a certain time (slevitch, 2011). the proposed model include reflective constructs since causality is directed from the construct to the measurement indicators (henseler et al., 2016). Population and sample Population object of the investigation is determined by the employees of the 813 agencies that make up the 17 banks that operate in Metropolitan lima. the universe of Peruvian companies is limited to the services sector because it is the most susceptible to the replacement of employees due to automation, this being among one of those most affected due to digitalization (Frey & Osborne, 2017). Medium and large companies are chosen because they usually have more advanced human factor management systems, and a level of digitalization that allows us to better appreciate the phenomenon of impact on productivity (Basl, 2017; Buer et al., 2021; ghobakhloo & Fathi, 2019; horváth & szabó, 2019; Mittal etal., 2018). and finally, the banking sector is delimited by: (a) Being an economic Figure 1. Conceptual model. cOgent BUsiness & ManageMent 7 activity that intensely discusses strategies for digitalization due to strong competition (Breidbach et al., 2020; Ozuem et al., 2018); and (b) the use in banks of individual digitized human factor management practices and systems has increased considerably, as senior management has focused on the quality of human resources processes and productivity to improve competitiveness (sabir etal., 2015). the sample size was determined following what was indicated by hair (2010), who recommended a proportion of respondent to indicator of 10:1 for multivariate analysis. this study has six variables with 32 indicators in total, therefore, the minimum sample size for this study should be 320 (10 x32). after collecting information in field, 330 measurements were obtained. the sampling technique adopted was proportional stratified random probability sampling, in which each member of the sample size was randomly selected from each given sample stratum (tagod etal., 2021). the 812 banking branches identified for the 17 banks in Metropolitan lima were splitted by strata according to the number of branches that each bank has, as shown below. From this stratification, the random sample per stratum was calculated proportionally, according to the size calculated for the sample n = 320. For the selected branches, the key informants were middle to senior management personnel officials with direct or indirect involvement in the company’s strategic objectives. customer front line personnel were not considered, because their perception of productivity and human resources policies could be biased (De Bruin et al., 2021). Measures Measurement instruments for the variables under study were extracted from existing instruments derived from a review of the literature in the areas of interest of human factor management, productivity, and digitalization. the data were obtained through an online survey with a questionnaire, to employees of the banking agencies selected through stratified random sampling. the questionnaire was adapted from instruments already validated in recognized research in journals Q1 and Q2 for the variables under study. it was prepared in spanish by translating from articles in english, and then this translation was validated by a professional translator to guarantee similarity of meaning and semantic equivalence between these languages (schaffer & Riordan, 2003). a five-point likert scale (1 = “strongly disagree” and 5 = “strongly agree”) was used in this study. all survey participants received previously an informed consent protocol for surveys, which was approved by comité de Ética de la investigación para ciencias sociales, humanas y artes de la Pontificia Universidad catolica del Peru, with Opinion number: 053-2023-cei-ccsshhyaa/PUcP. to measure the human factor management through the four dimensions determined by the literature: (a) recruitment and selection, (b) performance evaluation, (c) training and development, and (d) compensation, it was used as a measurement instrument the questionnaire used by tessema and soeters (2006), who measured recruitment and selection practices with five indicators, employee performance appraisal practices with six indicators, training practices with six indicators, and compensation practices with six indicators. to measure perceived productivity, the Ko and choi (2019) instrument was used using three items: (a) general productivity of employees, (b) efficiency of the work process, and (c) competitiveness of the process through costs reduction. Other studies have used perceived work productivity on the basis that it is a valid and reliable measure (ahmad & allen, 2015; Bryson et al., 2006; goodhue & thompson, 1995). For the digitalization variable, an instrument of eight indicators used by sánchez etal. (2022) in order to include the Post cOViD 19 effects in the measurement instrument, which contains items related to the importance of digitalization, Digital transformation strategies, the opportunities promoted by digital technologies, the tools for business digitalization, innovation capabilities, corporate culture regarding digital concepts, the level of employee commitment to the function performed, and teleworking. information was collected in the second half of 2023, and lasted three months. Data analysis the structural equation modeling (seM) technique with covariance structure analysis (cB) was used to analyze the data. Following the instructions of hair (2010), the research model was analyzed in two stages: (a) in the first, the measurement model was analyzed to establish its validity and reliability by performing a confirmatory factor analysis (cFa) using the aMOs software package with maximum 14 K. R. JORge Ulises anD a. B. PaBlO JOsÉ predictive validity can facilitate the detection of highly productive employees (chadwick & li, 2018; hunter & hunter, 1984; Katou & Budhwar, 2007). Besides, Performance appraisal has shown a positive effect in productivity (β = 0.09, p = 0.227), but the conventional criterion of significance (p > 0.05) does not support this association; this could be because in the banking sector of Peru performance evaluations are not appropriate, in accordance with what was maintained by larson (1989), who indicated that when clear and reasonable personnel performance evaluation metrics, standards and practices are used to achieving objectives and providing relevant feedback can be useful to both the individual being evaluated and the organization, however, poorly executed performance evaluations can be detrimental to the organization’s performance; this result may also suggest the lack of a variable that could mediate this relationship such as worker motivation or satisfaction. training has shown a significant positive correlation with productivity (β = 0.225, p < 0.001) finding a strong statistical significance in this association; this confirms what most studies indicate that show a positive impact of human factor training on productivity, and that providing adequate training to employees can help improve their skills, which will subsequently increase their productivity (Bartel, 1994).; Black & lynch, 1996, Wang et al., 2010). compensation also shows a positive relationship with productivity (β = 0.138, p = 0.007) that means a high statistical significance in this association, which is consistent with the literature that offering high salaries and benefits as labor compensation can improve productivity and that the largest contributor to labor productivity is the employee’s salary as well as profit sharing (cozzarin & Jeffrey, 2014; Kazaz & Ulubeyli, 2007; shaw etal., 1998; shepard & edward, 1994). Regarding moderation effects of digitalization, it was found that digitalization significantly moderates the relationship between human factor management and company productivity, except with the performance appraisal, which showed an interaction effect with a weaker impact than in the other sub-constructs of human factor management. this proves that people management practices are strongly correlated with productivity, and digitalization allows improvements in performance that can be linked to productivity gains, but this depends on the presence of certain skills and knowledge that require training to take advantage of the digital technologies (horváth & szerb, 2018). Conclusions the main conclusion of this study is that human factor management has a positive impact on the perceived productivity of the company, with the exception of the Performance appraisal subconstruct. likewise, it is proven that digitalization has a significant moderating effect on the relationship between the management of human factor and productivity, with the exception also of performance appraisal, whose moderating effect is partial. all this, within the framework of a constantly changing environment in which digitalization is progressively and increasingly affecting the management of companies, in accordance with the theoretical framework adopted from the Dynamic capability View, in which the success of companies depends on their ability to renew their competencies within changing business environments. taking positive advantage of the changes that this implies constitutes a challenge for modern companies, particularly in the competitive banking sector where the proposed model was tested. the results obtained also have political implications within the company, since human factor management policies and practices must adapt to the required changes and people’s performance. human resource management should prioritize training programmes to help employees adapt to new technologies within organizations. By providing training and digital tools to improve innovation and decision-making, companies can prepare the next generation of human resources and business leaders for the challenges they may face. this is especially relevant in light of the economic impact of pandemics and other unpredictable global events, which can have lasting effects on the economy. the rapid advancement of digital technologies and the need for quick solutions demand that human resource management implement digital technologies throughout the human resources value chain. Digitalization of human resource management practices poses challenges, and these need to be monitored during the hole process. this article provides evidence that human resource management in a digital environment plays a key role in the performance of companies, and therefore, future research should be continued and intensified. cOgent BUsiness & ManageMent 15 Implications of the study Theoretical implications till the date, current research on i4.0 technologies and implementation has largely ignored the impact on the human factor; systematic consideration and attention to the human factor in the digital transformation of work can avoid negative consequences for individual employees, production organizations and for society as a whole (neumann et al., 2021). the impact of industry 4.0 on employees remains a relatively unexplored topic (ejsmont, 2021). similarly, Ribeiro-navarrete et al. (2021) revealed that, although digitalization creates value for companies and offers a number of benefits, little research has been done so far on its effect on business performance. taking into consideration the aforementioned, from the theoretical perspective this study contributes by providing empirical evidence that tests the moderating effect of digitalization in the relationship between the management of the human factor and productivity, achieving a better understanding of the phenomenon, contributing to the existing literature and debate, as well as providing the basis for future theoretical developments in this area, through a conceptual model that allows a better understanding of the phenomenon under study. Practical implications From a practical perspective, many companies still do not fully understand the effect of digitalization on performance, consequently, they invest in information and communication technologies without a well-thought-out strategy (truant etal., 2021). although companies are expected to provide financial and human resources to support the implementation of digital tools, barriers to investment in digitalization may arise due to: (a) high costs; (b) the need to acquire new skills, capabilities and internal competencies; and (c) the risks of obsolescence (Büchi etal., 2020). contrary to expectations, some companies that are digitally transforming do not see the human factor as a driving force, but rather as an obstacle to the implementation of industry 4.0, when the human factor lacks the necessary competencies and skills (herceg etal., 2020). therefore, there is a need for a comprehensive evaluation of the results of digitalization in personnel management, as well as the effectiveness of its changes (anand et al., 2020). From a practical point of view then, the present study is significant for the following reasons: • it allows us to determine which dimensions of human factor management can be better enhanced under the influence of a digital environment, thus contributing better to business performance. indeed, from the results it can be verified that recruitment, training, and compensation are those that have the greatest impact on productivity under the effect of digitalization. • it allows us to better understand the effect of digitalization on people’s productivity, so that investments in information technologies are more effective and are a means to achieve the desired competitiveness. having as a theoretical axis the Dynamic capability Vision (DcV) according to which the success of the company depends on its ability to renew skills to achieve competitiveness in a changing business environment (teece et al., 1997), the importance of studying more the link between good practices of the human factor with the productivity of the company, under the context of digital transformation, makes it necessary to develop a new conceptual model like the one proposed, which allows us to determine which human factor management functions contribute the most to organizational achievements, and how the phenomenon of digitalization affects this relationship, with which organizations could enhance the benefits obtained from this, thus being able to achieve the desired competitiveness (sotnikova etal., 2020). Limitations of the study the main limitation of the study is that the population and sample were composed only of banking entities in Metropolitan lima, which is why future research is required to generalize the results of the study to other business sectors and other geographical areas. likewise, the target population focused on 16 K. R. JORge Ulises anD a. B. PaBlO JOsÉ medium and large companies, so these results could not be applicable to small companies since these normally do not have human factor management systems or an advanced level of digitalization. the latent variable human factor management was measured with four sub-constructs; different results can probably be obtained with more explanatory sub-constructs, as proposed by other authors. On the other hand, the data sources of the questionnaires depended exclusively on the subjective qualification of the employees. Finally, another limitation of the study is the research design, which, being cross-sectional, limits the collection of information to a period of time. Authors contributions statement Kuong Rodríguez Jorge Ulises performed the conception and design, analysis and interpretation of the data, and the drafting of the paper. arana Barbier Pablo José contributed revising it critically for intellectual content, and the final approval of the version to be published. Both authors agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work. Disclosure statement the authors declare no conflict of interest. About the authors Kuong Rodríguez Jorge Ulises is Doctoral candidate in strategic Business administration from the Pontificia Universidad católica del Perú (P UcP), he also have a Master’s degree in Business administration from esan, and is civil engineer from the Pontificia Universidad católica del Perú (P UcP). he has extensive experience in engineering and construction projects, as well as in teaching at the university postgraduate level. Arana Barbier Pablo José has a Doctor in strategic Business administration from the Pontificia Universidad católica del Perú (P UcP), where he also obtained a Master’s degree in the same discipline. in addition, he has a Master’s Degree in leadership from eaDa Business school in Barcelona, spain. his research interests are company valuation, bibliometric studies and sustainability. Ethic declaration the authors confirm that all participants received an informed consent protocol for surveys, which was approved by comité de Ética de la investigación para ciencias sociales, humanas y artes de la Pontificia Universidad catolica del Peru, with Opinion number: 053-2023-cei-ccsshhyaa/PUcP. Funding the authors declare that no funding was received for this research. ORCID Kuong Rodríguez Jorge Ulises http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8104-1979 arana Barbier Pablo José http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4449-0086 Data availability statement the authors confirm that understand the terms of the share upon reasonable request data policy. the data that support the findings of this study are openly available in Data support repository at https://drive.google.com/ drive/u/0/folders/1ayMhlDkqov8o2tpUpFRwMxnYUlU7_tKa. References acemoglu, D., & Pischke, J. F. (1998). Why do firms train? theory and evidence. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355398555531 cOgent BUsiness & ManageMent 17 ahmad, M., & allen, M. M. c. (2015). high performance hRM and establishment performance in Pakistan: an empirical analysis. Employee Relations, 37(5), 506–524. https://doi.org/10.1108/eR-05-2014-0044 androniceanu, a.-M., georgescu, i., tvaronavičienė, M., & androniceanu, a. (2020). canonical correlation analysis and a new composite index on digitalization and labor force in the context of the industrial revolution 4.0. Sustainability, 12(17), 6812. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12176812 ancarani, a., & Di Mauro, c. (2018). Reshoring and industry 4.0: how 2 often do they go together? IEEE Engineering Management Review, 46(2), 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1109/eMR.2018.2833475 armstrong, M. (2009). Armstrong’s handbook of human resource management practice (11th ed.). Kogan Page. atrostic, B. K., & nguyen, s. V. (2005). it and productivity in U.s. manufacturing: Do computer networks matter? Economic Inquiry, 43(3), 493–506. https://doi.org/10.1093/ei/cbi033 Barišić, a. F., Rybacka Barišić, J., & Miloloža, i. (2021, september). Digital transformation: challenges for human resources management. in Proceedings of the ENTRENOVA Conference. Conference in Zagreb, Croatia. Bartel, a. P. (1994). Productivity gains from the implementation of employee training programs. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 33(4), 411–425. https://doi.org/10.3386/w3893 Basl, J. (2017). Pilot study of readiness of czech companies to implement the principles of industry 4.0. Management and Production Engineering Review, 8(2), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1515/mper-2017-0012 Becker, g. s. (1964). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education. columbia University Press for the national Bureau of economic Research. Black, s. e., & lynch, l. M. (1996). human-capital investments and productivity. american economic Review, 86(2), 263– 267. Retrieved from https://econpapers.repec.org/scripts/redir.pf?u=http%3a//links.jstor.org/sici%3Fsici%3D00028282 %2528199605%252986%253a2%253c263%253ahiaP%253e2.0.cO%253B2-n%26origin%3Drepec;h=repec:aea: aecrev:v:86:y:1996:i:2:p:263-67 Bohlander, g. W., & snell, s. (2009). Administração de recursos humanos (14th ed.). cengage. Boselie, P. (2010). Strategic human resource management. A balanced approach. Mcgraw-hill higher education. Boselie, J. P., Dietz, g., & Boon, c. (2005). commonalities and contradictions in research on human resource management and performance. Human Resource Management, 15(3), 67–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.2005.tb00154.x Branca, t. a., Fornai, B., colla, V., Murri, M. M., streppa, e., & schröder, a. J. (2020). the challenge of digitalization in the steel sector. Metals, 10(2), 288–311. https://doi.org/10.3390/met10020288 Breidbach, c. F., Keating, B. W., & lim, c. (2020). Fintech: Research directions to explore the digital transformation of financial service systems. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 30(1), 79–102. https://doi.org/10.1108/JstP-08-2018-0185 Brynjolfsson, e. (1993). the productivity paradox of information technology. Communications of the ACM, 36(12), 66– 77. https://doi.org/10.1145/163298.163309 Brynjolfsson, e., & hitt, l. M. (2003). computing productivity: Firm-level evidence. Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(4), 793–808. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465303772815736 Bryson, a., charlwood, a., & Forth, J. (2006). Worker voice, managerial response and labour productivity: an empirical investigation. Industrial Relations Journal, 37(5), 438–455. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2338.2006.00414.x Büchi, g., cugno, M., & castagnoli, R. (2020). smart factory performance and industry 4.0. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 150, 119790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119790 Buer, s. V., strandhagen, J. W., semini, M., & strandhagen, J. O. (2021). the digitalization of manufacturing: investigating the impact of production environment and company size. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 32(3), 621–645. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMtM-05-2019-0174 chadwick, c., & li, P. (2018). hR systems, hR departments, and perceived establishment labor productivity. Human Resource Management, 57(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21914 chapano, M., Mey, M. R., & Werner, a. (2023). Perceived challenges: Unfounded reasons for not forging ahead with digital human resource management practices. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 21 https://doi. org/10.4102/sajhrm.v21i0.2085 colbert, a., Yee, n., & george, g. (2016). the digital workforce and the workplace of the future. Academy of Management Journal, 59(3), 731–739. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.4003 cortellazzo, l., Bruni, e., & Zampieri, R. (2019). the role of leadership in a digitalized world: a review. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01938 côrte-Real, n., Oliveira, t., & Ruivo, P. (2017). assessing business value of Big Data analytics in european firms. Journal of Business Research, 70, 379–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.08.011 cozzarin, B. P., & Jeffrey, s. a. (2014). human resource management practices and longitudinal workplace performance. Applied Economics Letters, 21(5), 344–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2013.859371 cummings, W. D. t. g., & Worley, c. g. (2000). Organization development and change. nelson thomson learning. De Bruin, l., Roberts-lombard, M., & De Meyer-heydenrych, c. (2021). the interrelationship between internal marketing, employee perceived quality and customer satisfaction – a conventional banking perspective. Cogent Business & Management, 8(1), 1872887. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1872887 De lone, W. h., & Mc lean, e. R. (2003). the De lone and Mc lean model of information systems success: a ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 9–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2003.11045748 Del giudice, M., Di Vaio, a., hassan, R., & Palladino, R. (2021). Digitalization and new technologies for sustainable business models at the ship–port interface: a bibliometric analysis. Maritime Policy and Management, 49(1), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2021.1903600 18 K. R. JORge Ulises anD a. B. PaBlO JOsÉ Dukić Mijatović, M., Uzelac, O., & stoiljković, a. (2020). effects of human resources management on the manufacturing firm performance: sustainable development approach. International Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 11(3), 205–212. https://doi.org/10.24867/iJieM-2020-3-265 ejsmont, K. (2021). the impact of industry 4.0 on employees - insights from australia. Sustainability, 13(6), 3095. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063095 evans, c. (2003). Managing for knowledge: HR’s strategic role. Butterworth-heinemann. Fombrun, c. J., tichy, n. M., & Devanna, M. a. (1984). Strategic human resource management. John Wiley and sons. Ferrando, P. J., lorenzo-seva, U., hernández-Dorado, a., & Muñiz, J. (2022). Decálogo para el análisis Factorial de los Ítems de un test. Psicothema, 34(1), 7–17. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2021.456 Frey, c., & Osborne, M. (2017). the future of employment: how susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114, 254–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.019 ghobakhloo, M., & Fathi, M. (2019). corporate survival in industry 4.0 era: the enabling role of leandigitized manufacturing. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 31(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMtM-11-2018-0417 goodhue, D. l., & thompson, R. l. (1995). task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 213– 236. https://doi.org/10.2307/249689 hair, J. F. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective. Pearson education. hair, J. F., hult, g. t. M., Ringle, c. M., & sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). sage. henseler, J., hubona, g. s., & Ray, P. a. (2016). Using Pls path modeling in new technology research: Updated guidelines. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(1), 2–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/iMDs-09-2015-0382 herceg, i. c., Kuc, V., Mijuškovic, V. M., & herceg, t. (2020). challenges and driving forces for industry 4.0 implementation. Sustainability, 12(10), 4208. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12104208 hirsch-Kreinsen, h. (2016). Digitization of industrial work: Development paths and prospects. Journal for Labour Market Research, 49(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12651-016-0200-6 horváth, D., & szabó, R. Z. (2019). Driving forces and barriers of industry 4.0. Do multinational and small and medium-sized companies have equal opportunities? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 146, 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.05.021 horváth, K., & szerb, l. (2018). Managerial practices and the productivity of knowledge intensive service businesses: an analysis of digital/it and cash management practices. Strategic Change, 27(2), 161–172. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.2191 hunter, J. e., & hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96(1), 72–98. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.96.1.72 ichniowski, c., shaw, K., & Prennushi, g. (1997). the effects of human resource management practices on productivity: a study of steel finishing plants. American Economic Review, 87(3), 291–313. https://doi.org/10.3386/W5333 Kagermann, h. (2015). change through digitization – Value creation in the age of industry 4.0. in: horst albach, heribert Meffert, andreas Pinkwart, Ralf Reichwald (eds.), Management of permanent change (pp. 23–45). springer gabler. Kahn, W. a. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724. https://doi.org/10.5465/256287 Katou, a. a., & Budhwar, P. s. (2007). the effect of human resource management policies on organizational performance in greek manufacturing firms. Thunderbird International Business Review, 49(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/tie.20129 Kazaz, a., & Ulubeyli, s. (2007). Drivers of productivity among construction workers: a study in a developing country. Building and Environment, 42(5), 2132–2140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.04.020 Khanzode, a. g., sarma, P. R. s., Mangla, s. K., & Yuan, h. (2021). Modeling the industry 4.0 adoption for sustainable production in Micro, small & Medium enterprises. Journal of Cleaner Production, 279, 123489. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123489 Ko, Y. J., & choi, J. n. (2019). Overtime work as the antecedent of employee satisfaction, firm productivity, and innovation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(3), 282–295. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2328 Kohtamäki, M., Parida, V., Patel, P. c., & gebauer, h. h. (2020). the relationship between digitalisation and servitisation: the role of servitisation in capturing the financial potential of digitalisation. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 151(6), 119804. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119804 larson, J. R. (1989). the dynamic interplay between employees’ feedback-seeking strategies and supervisors’ delivery of performance feedback. The Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 408–422. https://doi.org/10.2307/258176 lempinen, h., & Rajala, R. (2014). exploring multi-actor value creation in it service processes. Journal of Information Technology, 29(2), 170–185. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2014.1 lepak, D. P., & snell, s. a. (1999). the human resource architecture: toward a theory of human capital allocation and development. The Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 31–48. https://doi.org/10.2307/259035 li, F. (2018). the digital transformation of business models in the creative industries: a holistic framework and emerging trends. Technovation, 92–93, 102012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2017.12.004 llinas, D., & abad, J. (2020). the role of high-performance people management practices in industry 4.0: the case of medium-sized spanish firms. Intangible Capital, 15(3), 190–207. https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.1485 lynham, s., & cunningham, P. (2006). national human resource development in transitioning societies in the developing world: concept and challenges. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 8(1), 116–135. https://doi. org/10.1177/1523422305283150 cOgent BUsiness & ManageMent 19 Mahony, D., trigg, M., grin, R., & Pustay, M. (2001). International business. Pearson. Matt, c., hess, t., & Benlian, a. (2015). Digital transformation strategies. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 57(5), 339–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-015-0401-5 Mittal, s., Khan, M. a., Romero, D., & Wuest, t. (2018). a critical review of smart manufacturing & industry 4.0 maturity models. implications for small and medium-sized enterprises (sMes.)Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 49, 194–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2018.10.005 nafukho, F. M., hairston, n. R., & Brooks, K. (2004). human capital theory: implications for human resource development. Human Resource Development International, 7(4), 545–551. https://doi.org/10.1080/1367886042000299843 nair, K. (2019). Overcoming today’s digital talent gap in organizations worldwide. Development and Learning in Organizations, 33(6), 16–18. https://doi.org/10.1108/DlO-02-2019-0044 neumann, W. P., Winkelhaus, s., grosse, e. h., & glock, c. h. (2021). industry 4.0 and the human factor – a systems framework and analysis methodology for successful development. International Journal of Production Economics, 233(107992), 107992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107992 nguyen, M., Pontes, n., Malik, a., gupta, J., & gugnani, R. (2024). impact of high involvement work systems in shaping power, knowledge sharing, rewards and knowledge perception of employees. Journal of Knowledge Management, https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-04-2023-0345 nunnally, J. c. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). Mcgraw. Ozuem, W., limb, n., & lancaster, g. (2018). exploring the locus of internal marketing. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 26(4), 356–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2016.1211729 Pfeffer, J. (1998). The human equation: Building profits by putting people first. harvard Business school Press. Rastogi, P. n. (2002). Knowledge management and intellectual capital as a paradigm of value creation. Human Systems Management, 21(4), 229–240. https://doi.org/10.3233/hsM-2002-21402 Ribeiro-navarrete, s., Botella-carrubi, D., Palacios-Marqués, D., & Orero-Blat, M. (2021). the effect of digitalization on business performance: an applied study of KiBs. Journal of Business Research, 126, 319–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jbusres.2020.12.065 Riley, s. M., Michael, s. c., & Mahoney, J. t. (2017). human capital matters: Market valuation of firm investments in training and the role of complementary assets. Strategic Management Journal, 38(9), 1895–1914. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2631 Ritter, t., & Pedersen, c. l. (2020). Digitization capability and the digitalization of business models in business-to-business firms: Past, present, and future. Industrial Marketing Management, 86, 180–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.11.019 saari, l., & Judge, t. (2004). employee attitudes and job satisfaction. Human Resource Management, 43(4), 395–407. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20032 saarikko, t., Westergren, U. h., & Blomquist, t. (2020). Digital transformation: Five recommendations for the digitally conscious firm. Business Horizons, 63(6), 825–839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2020.07.005 sabir, s., abrar, M., Bashir, M., Baig, s. a., & Kamran, R. (2015). e-hRM impact towards company’s value creation: evidence from banking sector of Pakistan. International Journal of Information Management, 7(2), 123–143. saks, a. M. (2006). antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600–619. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940610690169 sánchez, s., guadamillas, F., gonzález, M., & grieva, O. (2022). the effect of digitalization on innovation capabilities through the lenses of the knowledge management strategy. Administrative Sciences, 12(4), 144. https://doi. org/10.3390/admsci12040144 savastano, M., amendola, c., Bellini, F., & D’ascenzo, F. (2019). contextual impacts on industrial processes brought by the digital transformation of manufacturing: a systematic review. Sustainability, 11(3), 891. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su11030891 scarbrough, h. (2003). Knowledge management, hRM and the innovation process. International Journal of Manpower, 24(5), 501–516. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437720310491053 schaffer, B. s., & Riordan, c. M. (2003). a review of cross-cultural methodologies for organizational research: a best-practices approach. Organizational Research Methods, 6(2), 169–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428103251542 scholz, t. M. (2017). Big data in organizations and the role of human resource management: a complex systems theory-based conceptualization. In Personal Management und Organisation (pp. V-Vi). Peter lang international academic Publishers. schuler, R. s., & MacMillan, i. c. (1984). gaining competitive advantage through human resource management practices. Human Resource Management, 23(3), 241–255. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.3930230304 schultz, t. W. (1993). the economic importance of human capital in modernization. Education Economics, 1(1), 13–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/09645299300000003 sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2016). Research methods for business: A skill building approach (7th ed.). John Wiley & sons. sengupta, a., lalwami, s., goswami, s., & srivastava, P. (2020). Reinventing hR functions with sMac technologiesan exploratory study. Materials Today Proceedings, 46(1), 10169–10174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.10.875 sepulveda, F. (2010). training and productivity: evidence from Us manufacturing industries. Oxford Economic Papers, 62(3), 504–528. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/40856504 shamim, s., cang, s., Yu, h., & li, Y. (2017). examining the feasibilities of industry 4.0 for the hospitality sector with the lens of management practice. Energies, 10(4), 499. https://doi.org/10.3390/en10040499 shaw, J. D., Delery, J. e., Douglas, g., Jenkins, J., & gupta, n. (1998). an organization-level analysis of voluntary and involuntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 41(5), 511–525. https://doi.org/10.5465/256939 20 K. R. JORge Ulises anD a. B. PaBlO JOsÉ shepard, i. i. i., & edward, M. (1994). Profit sharing and productivity: Further evidence from the chemicals industry. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 33(4), 452–466. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-232X.1994.tb00351.x sima, V., gheorghe, i. g., subić, J., & nancu, D. (2020). influences of the industry 4.0 revolution on the human capital development and consumer behavior: a systematic review. Sustainability, 12(10), 4035. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su12104035 slevitch, l. (2011). Qualitative and quantitative methodologies compared: Ontological and epistemological perspectives. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 12(1), 73–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/1528008X.2011.541810 snell, s. a., & Dean, J. W. (1992). integrated manufacturing and human resource management: a human capital perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 35(3), 467–504. https://doi.org/10.2307/256484 sotnikova, Y., nazarova, g., nazarov, n., & Bilokonenko, h. (2020). Digital technologies in hR Management. Management Theory and Studies for Rural Business and Infrastructure Development, 42(4), 527–535. https://doi.org/10.15544/ mts.2020.54 tagod, M., adeleke, a. Q., & Moshood, t. D. (2021). coercive pressure as a moderator of organizational structure and risk management: empirical evidence from Malaysian construction industry. Journal of Safety Research, 77, 139– 150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2021.02.011 teece, D. J., Pisano, g., & shuen, a. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(199708)18:7%3c509::aiD-sMJ882%3e3.0.cO;2-Z tessema, M. e., & soeters, J. l. (2006). challenges and prospects of hRM in developing countries: testing the hRM– performance link in the eritrean civil service. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(1), 86– 105. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190500366532 theres, c., & strohmeier, s. (2023). Met the expectations? a meta-analysis of the performance consequences of digital hRM. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 34(20), 3857–3892. https://doi.org/10.1080/09 585192.2022.2161324 truant, e., Broccardo, l., & Dana, l. (2021). Digitalisation boosts company performance: an overview of italian listed companies. Technological Forecasting & Social Change,173(2), 121173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121173 turulja, l., & Bajgoric, n. (2018). information technology, knowledge management and human resource management: investigating mutual interactions towards better organizational performance. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 48(2), 255–276. https://doi.org/10.1108/VJiKMs-06-2017-0035 Ulrich, D., Younger, J., Brockbank, W., & Ulrich, M. D. (2013). the state of the hR profession. Human Resource Management, 52(3), 457–471. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21536 Urbach, n., & Röglinger, M. (2019). introduction to digitalization cases: how organizations rethink their business for the digital age. in Digital cases (pp. 1–-12). springer. Wall, t. D., Michie, J., Patterson, M., Wood, s. J., sheehan, M., clegg, c. W., & West, M. (2004). On the validity of subjective measures of company performance. Personnel Psychology, 57(1), 95–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.tb02485.x Wang, e., Klein, g., & Jiang, J. J. (2007). it support in manufacturing firms for a knowledge Management dynamic capability link to performance. International Journal of Production Research, 45(11), 2419–2434. https://doi. org/10.1080/00207540601020437 Wang, Y., goodrum, P. M., haas, c., glover, R., & Vazari, s. (2010). analysis of the benefits and costs of construction craft training in the United states based on expert perceptions and industry data. Construction Management and Economics, 28(12), 1269–1285. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2010.524238 Zavyalova, e., sokolov, D., Kucherov, D., & lisovskaya, a. (2022). the digitalization of human resource management: Present and future. Foresight and STI Governance, 16(2), 42–51. https://doi.org/10.17323/2500-2597.2022.2.42.51 Zhou, Y., liu, g., chang, X., & Wang, l. (2021). the impact of hRM digitalisation on firm performance: investigating three-way interactions. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 59(1), 20–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7941.12258 Zikmund, W. g., Babin, B. J., carr, J. c., & griffin, M. (2010). Business Research Methods. (8th ed.). south Western cengage learning.