Activity Theory as an Interpretive Framework for HR
Systems: Some Insights and Potential Contributions
Mohamed Omar Mohamud
Kuwait Maastricht Business School, Kuwait
Abstract. Human Resource (HR) systems are increasingly being focused on as
subjects of study by researchers and analysts alike. However, there are persistent
themes that resonate among existing HR studies, revolving around the
disharmonies between wider organisational strategies and individual-oriented
HR systems, as well as the quest for stability in an environment of prevalent
ambiguities. The study uses activity theory as interpretive and investigative
framework to bridge the gaps in the way HR systems are analysed. A number of
theoretical constructs that could potentially complement mainstream approaches
are suggested and explained. These include the idea that HR systems could be
viewed as object-oriented activity systems that consist of complex relationships
and connections, and an acknowledgement that tensions and contradictions are
integral part of human activities which ought to be seen as opportunities for
development and change.
1 Introduction
Research is increasingly paying close attention to organisational Human Resource
(HR) systems. This follows and is consistent with the bulk of the management
literature that posits that employee skills, knowledge and competencies are key
differentiating factor in today’s knowledge-based competition. This is the essence of
the resource-based view of the firm that holds that competitive advantage can be
achieved by “facilitating the development of competencies that are firm-specific,
produce complex social relationships, and embedded in a firm’s history and culture,
and generate tacit organizational knowledge” [1:699]. If these competencies and
knowledge are to be realized, a solid human resource management becomes a crucial
precondition. An organisation’s human resources are the individuals working in the
organization while the organisation’s macro strategies are dependent on those human
resources [2]. More specifically, a dedicated human resource system is required that
ensures that distinct but interrelated activities and processes are geared towards the
development and maintaining of a firm’s human resources [1].
Although the vitality of HR systems to organisational success is widely
acknowledged, there have been myriad perspectives and interpretations on the subject
among researchers, judging from the myriad models, theories and frameworks have
been applied to make sense of the field. These have been used as theoretical lenses
through which the field has been viewed, advancing our understanding the dynamics
of information systems. For example, [3] observed that structuration theory [4] has
Omar Mohamud M. (2008).
Activity Theory as an Interpretive Framework for HR Systems: Some Insights and Potential Contributions.
In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Human Resource Information Systems, pages 136-146
DOI: 10.5220/0001743501360146
Copyright
c
 SciTePress

been applied to connect the individual with the organisational social process especially
when considering IS strategies, Actor Network Theory [5] has been instrumental in the
analysis of IS case studies with regards to acceptance and implementation, as it pays
attention both to humans and technical tools in a network. [3] used Chaos Theory
which stresses instability and non-linearity of dynamic systems.
Despite these diverse contributions from the aforementioned theories, however, a
number of inconsistencies still persist in the way HR systems are analysed and
interpreted. This paper suggests an alternative conceptualisation derived from activity
theory [For example 6, 7, 8] and argues that activity theory constructs could be
instrumental in the investigation and interpretation of HR systems. The rest of the
paper is structured as follows: the next section reviews the traditional literature on HR
systems, especially as it relates to organisational competencies. Particular attention is
paid to gaps and contested areas which are not adequately addressed by the said
literature. Second, an overview of activity theory is offered, highlighting its core
components and concepts. Third, potential insights and contributions of activity theory
in bridging the gaps identified earlier in the paper are discussed. Finally, the
concluding remarks are briefly outlined.
2 HR Systems and Organisational Competences
The HR discipline is fundamentally concerned with the concept of job competence at
the micro, individual level [9, 10]. Job competence is defined as the possession of
skills that are critical for the individual to master if he is to perform well in the
completion of his task [9]. If HR is concerned with the micro and individual level, it
becomes an imperative that it is in harmony with the macro organisational levels such
as goals, objectives and strategies. This notion has been pointedly stressed by [ibid],
who maintain that misalignment between organizational strategy and HR systems (i.e.
processes, policies, and technologies) risks undermining the achievement of
competitive advantage in the market, as it could act as a barrier to the attainment of
new competences as well as the advancement of pre-existing ones. While bemoaning
the apparent gulf between the macro (strategic/organisational) and the micro
(individual) levels, the writers attribute it to divergent disciplinary inclinations
between the strategy and HR literatures. The former is pre-occupied with the
organisational-level analysis and is geared towards achieving organisational core
competencies, originally formulated by [11], in order to gain competitive advantage.
At the firm level, competences emanate from the organisational culture and routines
[12]. The HR literature is at the micro or individual level and emphasises the
individual’s competencies as key influences on the way a person performs at work.
Here, individual characteristics determine the level of competence an individual has
attained, which in turn has a bearing on performance. These include “motivation,
disposition, self-image, values, moral standards, norms of social behavior, and traits,
as well as communication, general reasoning, and learning capabilities” [9:437].
137

The literature on HR systems depicts an apparent inability to reconcile divergent
conceptions about approaches to effective HR management. For instance, a point
highlighted by [9] revolves around the difficulties faced by firms in choosing a human
resource approach, noting that prior research has distinguished between job-based and
skill-based approaches when formulating HR systems. The traditional job-based
approach utilises job descriptions to link work tasks with people with the desirable
profiles for the role. Thus, by adhering to the contents and boundaries of job
descriptions, this approach limits the individual’s potential for developing crucial
capabilities, including learning, flexibility, communication, collaboration, and
innovation. It needs to be said that an inability to harness these capabilities are
detrimental to the realisation of organisational goals. In a distinct departure from the
job-based approach, the skill-based approach stresses the individual’s competencies
and skills needed at the workplace. Here, the job description and the task are not the
focal points but the behaviour and skills of the individual. The skill-based paradigm
has the potential to enable the employees to undertake various tasks, as opposed to the
narrow constraints of the job-based perspective.
A common argument in the HR literature is that HR practices impact on
organisational performance in two ways [13]. First, HR practices shape the skills,
attitudes, and behaviours of the organisation’s workforce, and in turn these behaviours
influence organisational performance. Second, HR practices can impact directly on
organisational performance by creating structural and operational efficiencies.
Meanwhile, Mayfield et al [10] point to the dual characteristics of HR operations that
may at once be regarded as a source of change, and therefore threat to the status quo
within organizations, as well as being a source of improved organisational
performance. A strong HR system is one which enables HR operations to create a
situation and structure with little ambiguity concerning what the organisation requires
in terms organisational goals and practices, as well as in terms of the exchange
relationship between employer and employee, insist [13]. A HR system is deemed
relevant when employees can directly link it to key goals [ibid]. The authors’ view is
that a good HR system maintains congruence between the goal of the management
and that of the individual employee, in which case employees are motivated to pursue
own goals whilst simultaneously fulfilling organisational goals. Based on the
preceding review there appears to be some resonance among the authors that HR
systems that may bring about shifts in the status are looked upon as ‘threats’ and that
ambiguities and equivocations are to be avoided.
To sum up, there are a number of discernible shortcomings in the way the literature
traditionally analyses HR systems:
• Since HR systems are seen to revolve around micro, individual level
competencies, frequent disharmonies occur between organisational strategies and HR
systems, including matters pertaining to processes, policies and technology. This is
occasioned by the idea that the first is influenced by the strategy literature that puts
emphasis on organisational culture, routines and organisational-wide core
competencies. The HR literature, for its part, has an inclination to be at the individual
employee’s level and tends to raise such issues as motivation, communication,
learning and flexibility.
138

• The analysis of HR systems fails to provide a significant connection between
the traditional job-based HR approach whose main feature is job description and the
skill-based approach that focuses on individual competencies, which encompass
behaviour and attitude.
• The double view of HR operations in organisations: on the one hand, as a
source of change that threatens the status quo, and, on the other, as a key influence on
performance improvement.
• The notion that a viable HR system ought to produce minimum ambiguities in
terms of organisational goals and practices.
3 Activity Theory
The initial development of activity theory evolved from the work of a number of
Russian psychologists in the 1920s and 1930s, including Vygotsky and Leont’ev.
Vygotsky is credited with formulating the central tenets of the theory, although his
colleagues developed it further. As a theoretical approach, activity theory is
concerned with the relationship between material action, mind and society, and
therefore explores the links between thought, behaviour, individual actions and
collective practices [14]. In that sense, it is a philosophical and multi-disciplinary
approach for studying different forms of human practices, linking the individual and
the social levels [15].
Vygotsky’s work emphasised the concept of mediation, arguing that human
activity is mediated by tools and artefacts. He contended that human action
comprises an object or a purpose that it seeks to serve, a subject (person) undertaking
the action, and mediating tools. According to him, human do not interact directly with
their work but through mediating tools and artefacts. Mediating tools could be both
physical tools and cognitive tools such as mental models. In what was translated as
Mind in Society, [6] expounded on the idea that learning and the development of the
human mind starts with experiencing action in conjunction with others and through
the application of tools, rather than a process that commences within the confines of
the individual’s brain. This is to say that psychological process are sparked and
originate from social interactions. Perhaps as a consequence of this early influence, a
pervasive notion that runs through the works of different activity theorists is that the
human mind is developed through interactions with the world. The original ideas of
[6] about tool mediation were complemented by [7] with the structure and dynamics
of human activities, who made distinctions between individual actions and collective
human activities. The former, according to [ibid] are sub-sets of the latter. He did this
by articulating a hierarchical relationship between activities, actions and operations.
Activities are driven by a motive, actions are goal-oriented and conscious
undertakings by an individual or group, and operations are taken-for-granted,
unconscious processes that form part of action. In this hierarchy, the motive drives the
object of the collective activity, making the collective activity the unit of analysis.
Further, [ibid] stressed the division of labour between the subjects (actors), who are
the individuals and groups taking part in a collective activity.
139

As can be seen from the work of the leading early activity theory authors, the
acknowledgement of the role of cognitive tools as well as physical and material tools
is central in activity theory. This was a departure from the ‘Cartesian’ division
between body and mind so dominant in the West. Over the last few decades, several
publications have contributed to activity theory, prominent among which are [8, 16,
17, 18, 19]. It is probably Engestrom who has been the most prolific in writing about
and using activity theory in his studies in recent times. Among other advancements he
contributed to activity theory, Engestrom introduced the issue of an interconnected
whole, or ‘activity system’, and its components to describe human activities, in
addition to some generic principles of activity theory. These are explained in the
following section.
3.1 Basic Features of Activity Systems
The centre for activity theory and developmental work research at the University of
Helsinki summarises the components that comprise an activity system as follows [20]:
Object. This is the problem or problem space towards which the whole activity is
directed in order to realise anticipated as well as unanticipated outcomes. The object
is partially given and partially constructed during the course of an activity. Objects
are continuously being transformed during the course of activities [21]. Since it drives
the whole activity system, the object is the single most important element of the
system
Subject. This refers to the individual or group who are directly involved in the
activity and whose point of view is considered in an analysis of the activity system. It
needs to be noted that, despite a shared object, adopting the perspectives of different
subjects could result in producing differing activity systems, which points to the
multi-voiced and complex nature of human activities. History, prior experiences,
agendas, goals, training, and position in the division of labour of the different subjects
have a bearing on the way they conceive of the object.
Tools and Artefacts. The subjects or actors’ work is mediated by tools and artefacts
as well as social mediators (rules, norms, and procedures), as they do not interact
directly with the object of their activity to produce outcomes. Mediating between the
subject and object are tools and artefacts, including language. Where tools and
artefacts mediate between the subject and the object of his activity, rules mediate
between the subject and the community, and the division of labour mediates between
the community and the object [8, 14].
Community. This is the group that the actors or subjects identify with, be they people
from within the same organisation or outside. If an individual is actively involved in
particular actions, then he is the subject in that particular activity. Otherwise, that
person is a member of the wider community.
Rules. Rules mediate between the subject and community. Rules could either be
formal and explicit procedures, including policies and other regulations, or informal
norms and values. Rules give general guidelines and directions, both directly and
140

indirectly. Rules are part of what is regarded as social mediators, together with the
division of labour.
Division of Labour. This refers to the tasks, roles, and power structures within
organisational activity systems. The division of labour mediates between the
community and the object of its activity. As with the rules above, they are part of the
social mediators. Figure 1 below depicts the complete model of human activity
systems based on [8].
Fig. 1. A model of human activity systems [8].
The defining principles of activity theory have been synthesised by [19] as: the
activity as the unit of analysis; plurality in viewpoints and interpretations or ‘multi-
voicedness’; historicity; the role of contradictions as sources of change; and,
possibilities for transformation within activity systems. The first principle is that the
unit of analysis is taken to be the object-oriented and artefact-mediated activity
system. The activity system is mediated by tools as well as social mediators such as
rules and norms. The activity system is not seen as isolated and stand-alone entity but
as being in a network of other activity systems. Each activity system has an object as
an underlying motive that gives it its thrust. With a common object, the different
components of the system form an integrated if tension-filled phenomenon that brings
together the subjects (actors), rules, division of labour, tools and artefacts. This
accords a systemic perspective to the analysis of organisations and other work
activities. The second principle is the multi-voiced nature of activity systems since
they incorporate a community of multiple points of views, interests, and agendas,
owing to divergent histories and experiences. Each individual in the activity system
gets a different interpretation of the object based on his history, division of labour,
training and experience, making it multi-voiced [22]. In a scenario with networks of
interacting activity systems, multi-voicedness is multiplied.Historicity forms the third
principle and implies that, as activity systems evolve over long time, their analysis
Community
Object of
Activity
Subject
Rule
Mediating artefacts
Division of
Labour
Outcome
141

need to be based on history. By looking back in their historical developmental
trajectory, the problems and potentials of activity systems can be understood. The
fourth principle is the centrality of contradictions. These are historically accumulated
structural misalignments within and between activity systems. Activity theory sees
contradictions as integral part of human activities. A distinction is made between
contradictions and common disturbances and discrepancies. Disturbances are those
visible and everyday tensions or ruptures that are easily identifiable while
contradictions are historical and systemic, making them difficult to observe as they
lurk underneath the surface. When aggravated, contradictions prompt attempts at
resolving them which in turn lead to development and change. Thus, they are not to
be seen simply as distractions and threat but also as opportunities for improvement.
The fifth principle revolves around the possibility of transformations within activity
systems. Transformations happen when an individual’s or a group’s questioning of
the state of affairs in an activity system escalates into a collective and collaborative
effort of the whole community, resulting in wide changes. From the perspective of
[19:137], “an expansive transformation is accomplished when the object and motive
of the activity are re-conceptualized to embrace a radically wider horizon of
possibilities than in the previous mode of activity.” In practical terms, it is in the
process of reconciling disparate conceptions of the object, rules, and tasks that
learning (competency development) occurs.
3.2 Potential Activity Theory Contributions to HR Systems
The persistence of the dominant HR literature to create demarcation between the
strategy of the organisation and the individual level may be resolved by activity
theory’s conception of an object-oriented activity system. Viewing the HR system as
an activity system implies that the individual (subject) is an integral member of the
system and the activity theoretical analysis provides for a possibility to zoom in on
any of the six elements (corners) of the activity system. Gradually, the analysis can
take a system-wide view and investigate the attainment of the overarching outcomes
desired. Whilst providing for the collective view of the system, the concept of activity
systems as the embodied contexts in which human beings work inculcates the goals
and needs, both conscious and latent, rules and norms, tools and artefacts, division of
labour, and the community of practice. The collective object may not be interpreted in
the same way by all the participants in the activity system. Indeed, it may only give a
general direction as to what a group of people’s problem space might be or what their
work entails without being precise as to the specifics of the activity. As such, people’s
interpretations as to what the object of their work is could vary, as objects continually
evolve and get re-constructed. Through these continuous modifications and re-
alignments between the different parts of the activity system in trying to construct and
achieve the object, the division between the macro (strategic) and micro (individual or
group) levels is mitigated.
Traditional analyses of HR systems have failed to account for the connection between
the job-based HR approach that relies on job descriptions and the skill-based
approach which emphasises employee competencies. The notion of a flexible but
interconnected and objected-oriented activity system, mediated by tools and cultural
142

artefacts, and that incorporates a community of professionals, has the potential to
integrate the job-based and skill-based approaches. In the language of activity theory,
the task-based approach demonstrates a division of labour whereas the skill-based
approach revolves around the actors (subjects) doing the job and their competencies.
By viewing it as a flexible activity system where disturbances and contradictions are
constantly resolved, any mismatch is handled and both approaches are
accommodated. For instance, any skill shortages on the part of the subjects or their
wider community of professionals is attended to while any inadequacies and
concerns in the division of labour are tackled. Since power structures, tasks, roles, and
functional areas of the system all come under the division of labour, it mediates the
community of practice and their object of activity. Similarly, employee attitudes and
mental models are included in the mediating artefacts and tools while job procedures,
guidelines, and norms are all within the rules.
Applying the prism of activity theory to HR systems also challenges the tendency by
HR analysts to look for stable and predictable situations, where ambiguities are either
non-existent or minimal. In contrast to mainstream HR analysis, activity theory looks
upon tensions and disturbances as triggers for learning, innovation and knowledge
creation. By virtue of being multi-voiced and eclectic with each component having its
own history and individuals having varying backgrounds, agendas, and inclinations,
activity theory considers human activities as being rife with breakdowns and disco-
ordinations. As it relates to HR systems, this implies a significant shift in perspective,
for contradictions and paradoxes are regarded as intrinsic features of human activities.
This opens up opportunities as they will cease to be frowned upon as threats having
adverse effects on the status quo. As the subjects or actors engage in the process of
sense-making about the tensions and contradictions in the system, new objects are
constructed or existing ones re-configured, the use of tools reflected on, and,
professional as well as social identities are re-evaluated, including tasks and roles.
Table 1 below shows a summary of possible contributions of activity theory
constructs to HR systems.
Table 1. Summary of HR literature gaps and potential activity theory contributions.
HR systems analysis gaps Activity theory contributions
Disharmonies between the
wider organisational
strategies and the individual-
oriented HR systems, owing
to the respective influences
of the strategy and HR
literatures.
Object-oriented activity system handles this demarcation,
as it incorporates the macro and micro in a single activity
system, thereby also covering the motivations and
dispositions of the subject. Also activity theory is an
eclectic mix of disciplines (anthropology, psychology,
education, etc), which makes it pluralist and multi-
perspective.
143

Table 1. Summary of HR literature gaps and potential activity theory contributions (cont.).
HR systems analysis gaps Activity theory contributions
The analysis of HR systems
does not show substantial
connections between the
traditional job-based HR
approach (job description)
and skill-based approach
(individual competencies
such as behaviour and
attitude.
Activity theory, with its concept of object-oriented activity
system that incorporates the six elements, integrates the
two perspectives. In activity theoretical terms, the task-
based approach demonstrates a division of labour while the
skill-based is aligned with the subject. Viewing it as a
flexible system where disturbances and contradictions are
constantly resolved, any mismatch is handled and both
approaches are accommodated. Any skill requirement is
attended to while any inadequacies in the division of
labour are tackled. Employee attitudes and mental models
are included in the mediating artefacts and tools, while job
procedures are within the rules. Whether using job-
description or skill requirement as a guideline, activity
theory as an interpretive framework provides a dual vision:
zooming in on each component of the system (e.g. the
subject’s attitudes, motivation, agenda, etc) and the wider
system whose efficacy hinges on the achievement of the
object.
The double view of HR
operations in organisations:
on the one hand, as a source
of change that threatens the
status quo, and, on the other,
as a key influence on
performance improvement.
Activity theory conceives of mismatches, tensions,
contradictions, and paradoxes not only as threats, but also
as openings for learning and improvement [23]. Also,
from activity theoretical standpoint, the object (purpose,
essence) is not clear-cut from the outset, but keeps
evolving as people engage in common activities mediated
by tools such as technology and language. Again this could
be the basis for a re-interpretation of HR systems using a
different theoretical tradition such as activity theory.
4 Conclusions
This paper sought to conceptualise HR systems using activity theoretical constructs
and so doing attempt to identify potentials contributions. The extant literature in the
traditional HR approaches was first reviewed and a number of inconsistencies were
highlighted, including the apparent disharmony occasioned by the influences of the
strategy literature which stresses organisational level analysis and the HR literature
which concentrates on the individual and groups. Other gaps in the HR literature
touched on the inability of HR analysts to bridge the gulf between job-based
approaches, and skill and competency-based approaches. Moreover, the mainstream
view that HR operations are considered threats to the status quo while ate the same
being seen as factors in the improvement of work activities is a paradox.
It has been argued that the activity theoretical idea of object-oriented and mediated
activity systems as the units of analysis offers a viable lens to interpret the
144

complexities of HR systems without overlooking either the overarching strategic aims
of the systems or the micro dynamics at the level of the individual or group. The
systemic conception of activity systems (with their connections and relationships
between different parts of the system) not only considers elements such as roles, tasks
and job descriptions, but also competency development among individuals. Finally,
the activity theoretical view that human activities are by their very nature complex
and tension-filled, and its insistence that contradictions and efforts to resolve them
could spark off learning and development is regarded as a contribution.
References
1. Lado, A.A., and Wilson, M.C.: Human resource systems and sustained competitive
advantage: a competency-based perspective. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19,
No.4 (1994) 699-727
2. Scarbrough, H.: Pathological dependency? Core competencies from an organizational
perspective, British Journal of Management, 9, (1998) 219-232
3. McBride, N.: Chaos theory as a model for interpreting information systems in
organizations, Info Systems, 15, (2005) 233-254
4. Giddens, A.: The constitution of society: outline of the theory of structure. University of
California Press, Berkeley (1984)
5. Latour, B.: Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society.
Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass (1987)
6. Vygotsky, L.S.: Mind in Society. Harvard University Press, MA (1978)
7. Leont’ev, A.: Activity, Consciousness, and Personality. Prentice-Hall, Inglewood Cliffs,
NJ (1978)
8. Engeström, Y.: Learning by Expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental
research. Orienta-Konsultit, Helsinki (1987)
9. Lindgren, R; Henfridsson, O; and Schultze, U.: Design principles for competence
management systems: a synthesis of an action research study, MIS Quarterly, 28:3, (2004)
435-472.
10. Mayfield, M; Mayfield, J; and Lunce, S.: Human resource information systems: a review
and model development, Advances in Competitiveness Research, 11:1, (2003) 139-151.
11. Prahalad, C. K. and Hamel, G.: The core competency of a corporation, Harvard Business
Review, 68:3, (1990) 79-91
12. Nelson, R., and Winter, S.: An evolutionary theory of economic change. Harvard
University Press. Cambridge, MA (1982)
13. Nishii, L.H; Lepak, D.P; and Nishii, L.H.: Employee attributions of the “Why” of HR
practices: their effects on employee attitudes and behaviors, and customer satisfaction,
Cornell University working paper series, (2007), available electronically on:
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/workingpapers/71/
14. Blackler, F.: Knowledge and the theory of organizations: Organizations as activity systems
and the reframing of management, Journal of Management Studies, 30:6 (1993) 863-84
15. Kuuti, K.: Activity theory as potential framework for human-computer interaction research.
In Nardi, B. (Ed): Context and consciousness: activity theory and human-computer
interaction, MIT Press. Cambridge, MA (1996)
16. Cole, M.: Culture and cognitive development: from cross-cultural research to creating
systems of cultural mediation, Culture & Psychology, Vol. 1 (1995) 25-54
17. Cole, M.: Cultural Psychology: a once and future discipline, Harvard University Press.
Cambridge, Massachusetts (1996)
145

18. Engeström, Y.: Activity Theory and the Social Construction of Knowledge: A Story of
Four Umpires, Organization, 7:2 (2000) 301-310
19. Engeström, Y.: Expansive Learning at Work: toward an activity theoretical re-
conceptualization, Journal of Education and Work, 14:1 (2001) 133-156.
20. Centre for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research, University of Helsinki,
Finland: (www.edu.helsinki.fi/activity): accessed 15 April 2008
21. Nardi, B. (ed.): Context and consciousness: activity theory and human-computer
interaction, MIT Press Cambridge, MA (1996)
22. Virkkunen, J; and Kuutti, K.: Understanding organizational learning by focusing on activity
systems, Accounting Management and Information technologies, 10 (2000) 291-319
23. Norros, L.: Systems disturbances as springboard for development of operators’ expertise.
In: Engestrom, Y. and Middleton, D. (Eds): Cognition and communication at work,
Cambridge University Press, New York (1996)
146