Teaching and Teacher Education 143 (2024) 104543

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Research paper

The alignment of induction and evaluation of beginning teachers in

secondary education: A strategic human resource management perspective
Pieter Flamand *, Melissa Tuytens , Eva Vekeman , Geert Devos
Department of Educational Studies, Ghent University, Belgium

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: A strategic human resource management (HRM) perspective posits that HRM practices can be aligned in various
Teacher induction ways to better achieve organizational goals. This qualitative study explores how teacher induction and beginning
Teacher evaluation teacher evaluation are designed strategically within secondary schools. The analyses are based on 57 semi-
Human resource management
structured interviews with school leaders, beginning teachers, and mentors in 12 secondary schools in Flan­
Schools
ders (Belgium). We identified highly strategic, moderately strategic, and non-strategic schools, that vary in the
Strategic planning
way they align induction and evaluation practices. Our findings provide tools to rhyme the conflicting goals of
teacher induction and beginning teacher evaluation.

1. Introduction
Over the last decades, teacher shortages have become a prominent
problem in the educational field (Ingersoll, 2012; Maulana et al., 2015).
One of the main reasons underlying this phenomenon is the challenge of
retaining beginning teachers (Schaefer et al., 2012). Teachers are usu­
ally considered ‘beginning’ during the first five years of their profes­
sional career (e.g., Ingersoll, 2012; Struyven & Vanthournout, 2014).
From then on, the number of teachers leaving the profession gradually
decreases (Struyven & Vanthournout, 2014). Ingersoll and Strong
(2011) argue that one of the reasons for the high turnover rate of
beginning teachers is the isolated nature of teaching, which often leads
to beginning teachers being left to their own devices in a new and
demanding environment. Therefore, schools are challenged to look for
strategies to attract sufficient teachers and tooptimize staff motivation
(Mercer et al., 2010).
Because of teacher shortages and the attrition of beginning teachers,
school boards are increasingly focusing on the potential of human
resource management (HRM) to improve the quality and retention of
teachers (Runhaar, 2017). Within this context, a strategic approach to
HRM is being recognized as a possible road to improvement (Vekeman
et al., 2016a). Strategic HRM can be defined as an approach to HRM that
explicitly aims to achieve individual, organizational, and societal goals
(Leisink & Boselie, 2014). To reach these goals, HRM practices should be
aligned with the strategic planning of the organization, but also with
each other (Boxall et al., 2007; Heneman & Milanowski, 2011; Leisink &
Boselie, 2014). This horizontal alignment of HRM practices may lead to
an improved effectiveness of the individual practices and the HRM
system as a whole (Knies et al., 2018; Messersmith et al., 2011; Runhaar,
2017). In this study, we focus on teacher induction and beginning
teacher evaluation, the two most relevant HRM practices for beginning
teachers (Vekeman et al., 2016b). It is important to acknowledge that
these HRM practices are more likely to reach their full potential when
they are deployed strategically (e.g., Huselid, 1995; Knies et al., 2018).
In other words, teacher induction and teacher evaluation should be
aligned with the school’s strategic planning and with each other, to
contribute optimally to the retention of beginning teachers.
Recently, educational research has given attention to individual
HRM practices and their alignment with the strategic planning of
schools and the individual needs of teachers (Tuytens et al., 2021). In
contrast, little is known about the alignment of HRM practices with each
other (i.e., horizontal alignment; Heneman & Milanowski, 2011). This
aspect of strategic HRM needs further exploration, as different HRM
practices may serve different and even conflicting purposes. For
example, assigning an evaluative role to mentors of beginning teachers
might hinder the formative purpose of induction practices, as beginning
teachers are less likely to disclose the concerns and difficulties they
encounter when their mentor has a higher status within the school
(Hobson et al., 2009).
Teacher induction and teacher evaluation both play a crucial role in
the early years of teaching, but their alignment cannot be taken for
granted, as these practices may serve conflicting purposes. Objectives

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: pieter.flamand@ugent.be (P. Flamand).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2024.104543
Received 7 May 2023; Received in revised form 17 January 2024; Accepted 21 February 2024
Available online 29 March 2024
0742-051X/© 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
P. Flamand et al.
relating to accountability and summative evaluation (i.e., teacher
evaluation) may complicate a focus on guidance and formative evalu­
ation (i.e., induction) (Frase & Streshly, 1994; Hattie & Timperley,
2007; Israel et al., 2014). The close examination of the horizontal
alignment of teacher evaluation and induction is one of the main pur­
poses of this study.
In this qualitative study, we examine how induction and evaluation
of beginning teachers in secondary schools are designed strategically. To
address this issue, three interrelated research questions were put for­
ward: (1) How is teacher induction aligned with strategic planning in
schools and teachers’ individual needs? (2) How is teacher evaluation
aligned with strategic planning in schools and teachers’ individual
needs? and (3) How are teacher induction and teacher evaluation
aligned with each other? By addressing these research questions, this
study contributes to the existing body of knowledge regarding (stra­
tegic) HRM in schools and the issue of early attrition in the teaching
profession.
2. Theory
2.1. Strategic human resource management
In the private sector, human resource management (HRM) is a
familiar and well-established practice. The focus of HRM is on positive
reinforcement and motivation of employees (Mercer et al., 2010). It is
largely based on the ‘resource-based view’ (cf. Barney, 1991), an
approach that attributes the competitive advantages of organizations to
be strongly dependent on the unique resources – including human re­
sources – they possess (Wilkinson et al., 2010). Barney (1991) therefore
points out that organizations have every interest in investing in their
human resources if they are to achieve their predetermined goals.
Furthermore, the positive impact of HRM on organizational success is
widely recognized (Becker & Huselid, 2006; Hamadamin & Atan, 2019;
Messersmith et al., 2011). In particular, HRM has the potential to
improve outcome variables as employee satisfaction, motivation, and
retention (Boselie, 2014; Knies et al., 2018). In summary, HRM is seen as
the positive investment in human resources to achieve the goals of the
organization more efficiently (Boselie, 2014). Employees are seen as
resources in which investments are necessary to achieve the desired
returns (Hamadamin & Atan, 2019; Leisink & Boselie, 2014; Messer­
smith et al., 2011).
For a human resource approach to reach its full potential, a strategic
perspective is recommended. Strategic HRM adds a strategic dimension
to the general HRM approach. Boselie (2014) describes strategic HRM as
follows: ‘management decisions related to policies and practices that
together shape the employment relationship and are aimed at achieving
individual, organizational and societal goals’ (p. 5). Hence, the term
‘strategic’ refers to an explicit focus on achieving the organizational
goals. Furthermore, the definition of Boselie (2014) moves away from
financial benefits as the only goal to be considered, which makes the
concept suitable for organizations in both the private and the public
sector. The research literature provides convincing empirical evidence
of the added value of strategic HRM in achieving organizational goals in
terms of increased productivity, higher ‘profitability’, and lower attri­
tion of beginning employees (e.g., Huselid, 1995; Knies et al., 2018).
A strategic HRM approach consists of two main components: vertical
and horizontal alignment (Heneman & Milanowski, 2011). Vertical
alignment means connecting the individual HRM practices to the stra­
tegic planning of the organization (i.e., vision and organizational goals)
(Runhaar, 2017). Horizontal alignment, in turn, refers to aligning the
different HRM practices with each other (Knies et al., 2018; Leisink &
Boselie, 2014). The strategic HRM literature states that different human
resource practices can work together and enhance each other’s effec­
tiveness if they are aligned (Runhaar, 2017). Such an integrated HRM
system is believed to make a greater contribution to the achievement of
organizational goals than separate HRM practices (Heneman &
2
Teaching and Teacher Education 143 (2024) 104543
Milanowski, 2011; Leisink & Boselie, 2014; Tuytens et al., 2023). Becker
and Huselid (2006) argue that both forms of alignment – vertical and
horizontal - must be present for an HRM approach to be considered truly
strategic.
2.2. Strategic human resource management in education
In educational literature, research about strategic HRM has been
scarce. This is not surprising, as the context in which HRM was devel­
oped differs substantially from the (public) educational context. Knies
et al. (2018) emphasize that goals of public organizations are often
complex and ambiguous, while the ultimate organizational goal in the
private sector is maximizing profit. Specific to education, organizational
goals are focused on establishing good teaching and enhancing student
outcomes (Gurley et al., 2015). As strategic HRM is fundamentally
aimed at reaching these organizational goals, it is crucial to consider
these specific characteristics to contextualize the existing knowledge
base.
Despite these significant differences, previous research points to the
added value of implementing a strategic HRM approach in an educa­
tional context. HRM has the potential to increase student outcomes
stimulating teachers’ engagement, motivation, and team learning goal
orientation (Runhaar, 2017; Tuytens et al., 2023). In addition to these
motivational outcomes, Leisink and Boselie (2014) address the potential
of strategic HRM to improve teachers’ competencies and develop a
stimulating working environment. Moreover, teachers’ perceptions
about the availability and effectiveness of the HRM practices are related
to job performance and employee engagement (Van Beurden et al.,
2021). In order to further explore the added value of strategic HRM in
education, it is important to clarify how the two components of strategic
HRM (i.e., vertical and horizontal alignment) can be interpreted within
this specific context.
2.2.1. Vertical alignment of human resource practices: alignment with
strategic planning and individual needs of teachers
Becker and Huselid (2006) argue that one part of a strategic
approach to HRM consists of vertical alignment. Vertical alignment
means that the various HRM practices should be aligned with the stra­
tegic planning (i.e., vision, organizational goals) of the school (Runhaar,
2017). For example, if a school wants to present itself as an organization
with a strong commitment to care, both induction and evaluation of
beginning teachers should be aligned with this vision. Therefore, a
guiding principle of a strategic perspective on HRM should be the sys­
tematic alignment of employees’ knowledge, competencies, and
commitment with the school’s educational and organizational goals
(Leisink & Boselie, 2014).
However, within the vertical alignment of HRM practices, a one-
sided focus on the school’s strategic planning is not desirable. Leisink
and Boselie (2014) suggest a ‘balanced approach’, in which school
boards acknowledge that teachers are not only resources but also human
beings with their own needs and desires. Therefore, Tuytens et al. (2021)
argue that it is crucial that schools integrate both the school’s strategic
planning and the individual needs of teachers when shaping their HRM
system. Leisink and Boselie (2014) use a metaphor to clarify this
perspective: “Meaningful school goals are the head and heart of strategic
HRM policy, instruments are the hands and feet” (p.1). By instruments,
the authors refer to the professional dialogue between teachers and
school leaders that focuses on the knowledge, abilities, and attitudes
teachers can harness to contribute to the achievement of the school’s
organizational goals, and in which areas teachers are in need of further
professional development (Leisink & Boselie, 2014). For example, a
school that focuses on instruction that takes into account the needs of
underprivileged pupils might want to professionalize their teachers
accordingly. In other words, next to attention to the strategic planning of
the school, good strategic HRM policy recognizes the importance of
teachers’ individual needs. The rationale for this statement can also be
P. Flamand et al.
found in the resource-based view. According to this approach, teachers’
individual needs are of strategic importance to the success of the school
(Wright, Dunford, & Snell, 2001). In this regard, HRM practices can
become more strategic by examining which context factors influence
teacher satisfaction in order to subsequently target these factors (Leisink
& Boselie, 2014).
2.2.2. Horizontal alignment of human resource practices
Though vertical alignment of HRM practices is critical, more is
needed for an HRM approach that is truly strategic (Heneman & Mila­
nowski, 2011; Kepes & Delery, 2007). Kepes and Delery (2007) state
that HRM systems – and not individual HRM practices – are the source of
competitive advantage. This entails that, next to the alignment with the
school’s strategic planning and teachers’ individual needs, it is impor­
tant that the HRM practices are aligned with each other (Knies et al.,
2018). This alignment is also referred to as ‘internal fit’ or ‘horizontal
alignment’ (Kepes & Delery, 2007). If, for example, the induction of
beginning teachers is strategically aligned with teacher evaluation,
these two practices might reinforce each other’s effectiveness. A school
might benefit from a carefully designed evaluation practice using
criteria aligned with the vision of the school (e.g., ‘the teacher is capable
of creating a safe learning environment through successful classroom
management’). However, in order for the HRM system to reach its full
potential, mentors could support and guide teachers towards the eval­
uation criteria put forward within the school (e.g., providing feedback to
teachers in order to create a safe learning environment, stimulate
teachers’ reflection regarding the learning environment they create).
However, both positive and negative effects of the interaction be­
tween individual HRM practices can occur. Kepes and Delery (2007)
state that the conjunction of two individual HRM practices can be
‘powerful connections’ or ‘deadly combinations’. When dealing with
powerful connections, the combination of the two individual HRM ac­
tivities has a more positive effect than the sum of each individual HRM
activity (Kepes & Delery, 2007). In other words, an integrated HRM
system is believed to make a greater contribution to the achievement of
organizational goals than HRM practices standing on their own (Leisink
& Boselie, 2014; Messersmith et al., 2011).
2.3. Teacher induction and teacher evaluation as two crucial HRM
practices for beginning teachers
2.3.1. Teacher induction
Induction activities are a crucial part of HRM practices directed at
beginning teachers. The main goal of teacher induction activities is the
socialization of teachers within the new school context. This learning
process is characterized by the acquisition of knowledge, skills, values,
and norms of both the teaching profession and the local school com­
munity (Nasser-Abu Alhija & Fresko, 2010). To facilitate this learning
process, schools might provide teacher induction programs, which can
be defined as a more or less planned and formalized set of activities
during which beginning teachers are supported in their development as
competent and effective professionals (Maulana et al., 2015). These
activities include help, guidance, and support (Nasser-Abu Alhija &
Fresko, 2010). If schools employ induction activities, this may result in
beginning teachers being less likely to drop out (e.g., Ronfeldt &
McQueen, 2017).
The research literature shows that schools employ a wide variety of
activities and tools to facilitate the professional development of begin­
ning teachers, including mentor support, peer and colleague support, a
reduced workload, observation-based feedback, sharing written mate­
rials, and observation of experienced teachers (Ingersoll, 2012; Ingersoll
& Strong, 2011; Nasser-Abu Alhija & Fresko, 2010; Smith & Ingersoll,
2004). Moreover, it is important to recognize that the school leader and
the development of a supportive professional culture in the schools play
a crucial role in bringing these activities to fruition (Kardos et al., 2001).
To establish successful induction, schools must provide an
3
Teaching and Teacher Education 143 (2024) 104543
environment in which new teachers experience opportunities to learn to
teach, ‘survive’, and succeed as teachers (Ingersoll, 2012). Therefore,
Thomas et al. (2019) describe induction as a school-wide responsibility
that focuses on professional, emotional, and social aspects of teaching.
Consequently, effective induction should be seen as a systematic process
embedded in a healthy school climate that meets both the professional
and personal needs of new teachers (Bickmore & Bickmore, 2010).
In Flanders, teacher induction activities have been implemented in
various ways. By means of the decree on teacher education in 2006,
‘mentoring hours’ were introduced from 2007 to 2010, which allowed a
number of teachers or other members of the school team to be partially
exempted from other tasks to provide support for beginning teachers. In
2010, this additional funding was withdrawn due to budget cuts
(Thomas et al., 2019). During the period of data collection, schools
engaged in the induction of beginning teachers, but these initiatives
were not formally embedded in regulations. Flemish schools had the
autonomy to set up induction activities and in practice, this re­
sponsibility was mostly delegated to the individual schools (European
Commission, 2013; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development, 2014).
2.3.2. Teacher evaluation
In recent years, attention to teacher evaluation as an HRM practice
has increased considerably, which has led to several innovations in
teacher evaluation policy (e.g., Herlihy et al., 2014; Tuytens & Devos,
2010). Kraft and Gilmour (2016) argue that these changes serve a
twofold objective: (1) improving the potential of teacher evaluation
systems when it comes to high-stakes decisions by rendering them more
rigorous and reliable, and (2) providing teachers with useful feedback to
facilitate their improvement. Previous research has shown that
thoughtful teacher evaluation potentially contributes to teachers’ ability
and motivation (Blömeke & Klein, 2013).
School leaders typically play an important role in evaluating their
team of teachers. For example, teachers’ trust in their school leader, the
vision of the school leader, and the structure the school leader provides
are related to teachers’ perceptions of evaluation policy (Tuytens &
Devos, 2010). However, the role of school leaders is not limited to being
an evaluator, as they have to fulfill other important roles such as
building manager, inspirational leader, and employer (Kraft & Gilmour,
2016). In interviews with 24 school leaders, Kraft and Gilmour (2016)
identified several challenges when it comes to implementing teacher
evaluation policy, including a lack of time, the need for training,
different views on the purpose of evaluation, and providing feedback
outside the school leader’s field of expertise. These challenges lead to
unintended consequences that undermine the school leader’s ability to
support teachers’ professional growth (Kraft & Gilmour, 2016).
In Flanders, teacher evaluation plays a crucial role when it comes to
job security for beginning teachers. During their first year of service,
beginning teachers are formally evaluated in relation to their job
description. Only if they receive a formal evaluation that stipulates clear
points of improvement, they are not eligible to apply for a more per­
manent position the next school year (Flemish Ministry of Education and
Training, 2019).
2.3.3. The alignment between induction and evaluation
Repeatedly, educational research on HRM practices has emphasized
the importance of aligning professional development practices (such as
induction activities) and teacher evaluation, as this potentially increases
their effectiveness (e.g., Frase & Streshly, 1994; Israel et al., 2014).
However, aligning these two HRM practices does not appear to be an
easy endeavor. The combination of goals related to support and
formative evaluation and goals related to accountability and summative
evaluation might generate tension (Frase & Streshly, 1994; Hattie &
Timperley, 2007). For example, beginning teachers are less likely to
disclose the concerns and difficulties they encounter when their mentor
has a higher status (e.g., as an evaluator) within the school, and
P. Flamand et al. Teaching and Teacher Education 143 (2024) 104543

mentoring activities are likely to be less successful when there is an available – documents related to HRM practices (e.g., teacher evaluation
excessive focus on high-stakes evaluation (Hobson et al., 2009; Yusko & criteria). Additionally, we observed meetings between school leaders
Feiman-Nemser, 2008). However, some induction initiatives mainly and teachers and meetings between teachers to check whether these
focus on (high-stakes) evaluation to allow for targeted selection observations support the information provided in the interviews (e.g.,
(Ingersoll & Strong, 2011). While the inclusion of evaluation within do teachers get sufficient opportunities to formulate opinions and sug­
induction activities does not automatically lead to harmful conse­ gestions during meetings). The observations showed how school leaders
quences, it is considered important to align these practices in a acted in meetings and interacted with their staff. It also revealed how
thoughtful manner (Hobson et al., 2009; Israel et al., 2014). staff members interacted with each other.
One way of aligning induction activities and teacher evaluation is the We used a ‘stratified purposeful sample’ (Miles & Huberman, 1994),
inclusion of meaningful feedback in evaluative practices, as feedback which means that we did not aim for a representative sample, but for a
can be seen as the crucial link between evaluation and learning pro­ sample that could provide rich information regarding the research
cesses (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). However, teacher evaluation often questions. We mainly selected schools through a call to all Flemish
seems to be mainly symbolic and superficial, with little meaningful schools which called for schools to participate if they specifically focus
feedback (Tuytens & Devos, 2011). More research is needed to examine on their HRM approach. Some schools that participated in our previous
how schools deal with the combination of induction and evaluation to research on HRM were directly asked to participate. Eventually, twelve
deploy these practices successfully. secondary schools were selected, stratified by educational network,
number of students, socioeconomic status (SES), and location (Table 2).
3. Material and methods Without aiming for representativeness, this allowed us to include a
diverse set of schools in the research.
3.1. Data collection
3.2. Data analysis
The data of this study were collected during school year 2017–2018
(2 secondary schools; pilot study) and school year 2018–2019 (10 sec­ To analyze the interview data, a step-by-step approach based on the
ondary schools). We conducted interviews with various participants in insights of Miles and Huberman (1994) was used. First, the data were
these schools. In every school, the school leader (3 interviews at reduced using NVivo. Next, twelve within-case analyses were carried out
different times during the school year: initial interview, mid-term and finally, we performed a cross-case analysis across the twelve cases
interview, end-of-school-year interview; n = 35), a mentor (n = 10), (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
and a beginning teacher (n = 12) were interviewed, allowing different
perspectives on induction and teacher evaluation to be taken into ac­
count. Some example questions are ‘How are teachers involved in stra­
Table 2
tegic and HRM policy?’, ‘How are teachers evaluated in this school?’,
Demographic characteristics of cases.
and ‘How are HRM practices aligned with each other?’. The role of
evaluator was always taken up by the school leader and in most schools Educational Number of SES Location Educational track
network students
(n = 10), support was the responsibility of the mentor. In two schools no
mentor was interviewed, as induction was the responsibility of the 1 Subsidized 950 1.06 Urban Vocational
private
school leader only. Table 1 provides a detailed overview of the
2 Public 250 1.04 Urban General and
interviewees. vocational
To support data triangulation, relevant documents were collected 3 Subsidized 380 2.23 Urban Vocational
and additional observations were carried out. Both the analysis of the public
observations and documents were mainly supplementary to the in­ 4 Subsidized 1700 0.90 Urban Vocational
private
terviews. We collected documents concerning the school’s vision or 5 Subsidized 280 0.48 Rural General
mission, school regulations, professional development plans, school private
plans, information for new teachers within the school, and – where 6 Subsidized 840 0.59 Urban General and
private vocational
7 Subsidized 670 1.11 Urban General
private
Table 1 8 Public 540 1.83 Urban Vocational
Detailed overview of interviewees. 9 Subsidized 780 0.64 Urban Vocational
Teachers private
10 Subsidized 1100 0.29 Semi- General
School leader Beginning teacher Mentor private urban
(principal) (temporally appointed, first (experienced 11 Public 360 0.60 Semi- Vocational
year) teacher) urban
12 Subsidized 320 0.37 Rural General and
School
public vocational
1 1 (3 times) 1 1
2 1 (3 times) 1 1 Note: Bold numbers indicate large number of pupils (more than 600 pupils) or
3 1 (3 times) 1 1 high SES level (larger than 0.94). Educational network: In Flanders (Belgium), the
4 1 (3 times) 1 1
majority of schools (99%) receive equal funding from the Flemish Government,
5 1 (3 times) 1 X
6 1 (3 times) 1 1
which also implies they have to follow the same regulations. Noteworthy here is
7 1 (3 times) 1 1 that in Flanders (Belgium), schools have high autonomy at the school level.
8 1 (3 times) 1 1 These conditions are the same for all educational networks; for more details, see
9 1 (3 times) 1 1 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2017). The SES
10 1 (3 times) 1 1 score represents the number of pupils in the school that tick SES characteristics
11 1 (3 times) 1 X (e.g., family language, educational level of the mother). Location: In Flanders, a
12 1 (3 times) 1 1 (city) center is never far away. Urban refers to cities that have a central function
Total (N 36 12 10
because they concentrate on economic activity and services. Semi-urban refers
= 58)
to smaller cities or communities that have more economic activity and services
Note: X = no teacher in that position working in the school at the moment of the than on average. Rural refers to communities that have fewer economic activ­
interview. ities and services; for more details, see Belfius (2018).

4
P. Flamand et al. Teaching and Teacher Education 143 (2024) 104543

3.2.1. Data reduction Table 3

In order to reduce the data in this study, an initial coding scheme was Classification scheme.
generated based on the theoretical framework and the research ques­ SCORE 1 SCORE 0.5 SCORE 0
tions (example codes: ‘vertical alignment’, ‘formal induction’, ‘informal
Vertical Teacher induction Teacher induction Teacher induction
induction’, ‘teacher evaluation’). Throughout the coding process, more alignment of is aligned with is aligned with is not aligned with
detailed codes were added. ‘Formal induction’, for example, was sub­ teacher strategic planning strategic planning strategic planning
divided into ‘alignment to strategic planning’ and ‘alignment to indi­ induction and teachers’ or teachers’ nor teachers’
vidual needs’. Both the way the initial coding scheme was developed individual needs. individual needs. individual needs.
Induction activities Induction activities Induction activities
and the additions are recommended by Miles and Huberman (1994). are formally and are formally and are not formally
purposefully purposefully and purposefully
3.2.2. Within-case analyses oriented to the oriented to the oriented to the
After the initial data reduction, the coded data were analyzed to school’s strategic school’s strategic school’s strategic
plan and the plan or the specific plan nor the
compile a summary or ‘conceptually ordered display’ (Miles & Huber­
specific needs of needs of individual specific needs of
man, 1994, pp. 127–142) for each case. Each summary included infor­ individual beginning individual
mation about the school context (cf. Table 2), the school’s strategic beginning teachers. beginning
planning, and HRM policies, more specifically concerning induction and teachers. teachers.
teacher evaluation. In these summaries, the participant who provided Vertical Teacher evaluation Teacher evaluation Teacher evaluation
alignment of is aligned with is aligned with is not aligned with
the information (i.e., school leader, mentor, or beginning teacher) was teacher strategic planning strategic planning strategic planning
mentioned. evaluation and teachers’ or teachers’ nor individual
individual needs. individual needs. teachers’ needs.
3.2.3. Cross-case analysis There are There are There are generic
classroom visits classroom visits classroom visits
Following the vertical analyses, a horizontal analysis of the cases was
and feedback and feedback and feedback
conducted. First, we assigned a score for each of the three components of conversations with conversations with conversations with
strategic alignment (i.e., vertical alignment of teacher induction, verti­ teachers in which teachers in which teachers based on
cal alignment of teacher evaluation, and horizontal alignment between the strategic plan the strategic plan standard teacher
teacher induction and teacher evaluation) using the classification of the school and of the school or performance
individual needs individual needs criteria, which are
scheme below (cf. Table 3). Each component could be assigned a score of
are put forward as are put forward as not aligned with
1, 0.5, or 0. The classification scheme clarifies what each assigned value foci. foci. the strategic plan
represents. The scheme was created based on the literature on strategic of the school or
human resource management (Boselie, 2014; Leisink & Boselie, 2014) individual needs of
teachers.
and the insights gained from the within-case analyses. Based on these
Horizontal Teacher induction Teacher induction Teacher induction
scores, three categories of schools were identified and compared to one alignment of and teacher and teacher is weakly aligned
another: highly strategic schools, moderately strategic schools, and teacher evaluation are evaluation are with teacher
non-strategic schools. induction highly aligned. moderately evaluation. The
and teacher The summative aligned. The summative and
evaluation and formative summative and formative
3.2.4. Validity and reliability
evaluation (i.e., formative evaluation (i.e.,
Within this study, the validity and reliability of the data and research induction) are evaluation (i.e., induction) are two
findings were strengthened through triangulation. First, for every school based on the same induction) are completely isolated
we included the perspectives of multiple participants: the school leader, criteria and the based on the same practices or the
roles of the mentor criteria but there is achievement of
mentor, and a beginning teacher (data triangulation). In this way, the
and evaluator are a conflict of both summative
responses of the participants could be compared, which ensures higher clearly delineated, interest regarding and formative
validity (Patton, 1990). without conflict of the roles of the objectives is
Second, throughout the research process, there was continuous interest. mentor and the obstructed by the
interaction and alignment between researchers to strengthen the reli­ evaluator. complete fusion of
the two practices.
ability of our findings (researcher triangulation) (Patton, 1990).
Furthermore, we relied on different data sources (i.e., interviews, doc­
uments, observations) to analyze the HRM policies in the twelve sec­ practices in the twelve secondary schools. In Table 4, an overview of the
ondary schools and findings were continuously verified, refined, and scores is provided.
adapted when appropriate (method triangulation). When disconfirming The overview calls attention to the great variation in the way the
evidence was found during the analysis of the data, school leaders were twelve schools in our study shape their induction and evaluation prac­
asked for possible explanations during the second or third interview. tices. Moreover, we can clearly observe that a school that scores 1 for
However, in most cases, the perspectives of school leaders, mentors, and one of the three components does not automatically have a high score
beginning teachers supported each other. for the other components. Three schools (i.e., schools 1, 5, and 11) were
Finally, the scores of each case were double coded and an intercoder allocated the maximum score for all components, and three schools (i.e.,
reliability of 88.89% was obtained. Miles and Huberman (1994) suggest schools 4, 8, and 9) were allocated the minimum score for all compo­
a minimum standard of 80%. nents. The scores of the other schools varied. In order to further examine
the HRM systems, we have identified three categories of schools: highly
4. Results strategic, moderately strategic, and non-strategic schools (cf. Table 5).
Schools were identified as non-strategic when they had no scores of 1, as
Based on the qualitative data we gathered, each school was assigned moderately strategic when they had one score of 1, and highly strategic
a score for three components of their HRM practices, in line with the when they had at least two scores of 1. No schools were assigned two
three research questions: the vertical alignment of the induction of scores of 1, which means all highly strategic schools in this study had
beginning teachers (research question 1), the vertical alignment of the three scores of 1.
evaluation of beginning teachers (research question 2), and the hori­ The HRM practices of each category of schools (i.e., highly strategic,
zontal alignment of these two practices (research question 3). In this moderately strategic, or non-strategic) will be described using the
way, we were able to construct a general understanding of the HRM

5
P. Flamand et al. Teaching and Teacher Education 143 (2024) 104543

Table 4
Scores of the schools.
Note: Classification 1 (highlighted in green) = alignment with strategic planning and individual teacher needs
(for vertical alignment) or teacher induction and teacher evaluation are highly aligned (for horizontal
alignment); classification 0.5 (S) (highlighted in blue) = alignment with strategic planning (but not with
individual needs); classification 0.5 (I) (highlighted in orange) = alignment with the individual teacher needs
within the school (but not with strategic planning in the school); classification 0.5 (highlighted in purple):
teacher induction and teacher evaluation are moderately aligned; classification 0 (highlighted in red) = no
alignment with strategic planning nor individual teacher needs (for vertical alignment) or teacher induction
and teacher evaluation are weakly aligned (for horizontal alignment).

“The mentor already knows the school inside out. She knows the
Table 5
teachers and their expertise. Otherwise, I think too much would be
Classification of the schools.
lost because of the central appointment of one person." (School 8,
Highly strategic schools Moderately strategic schools Non-strategic schools school leader)
(≥2 times score 1) (one time score 1) (no score 1)
School 4 School 2 School 1 Concerning alignment with the individual needs of teachers, it is
School 8 School 3 School 5 striking that each highly strategic school organizes interactive group
School 9 School 7 School 6
School 10 School 11
sessions for beginning teachers during which they can discuss their
School 12 needs, problems, and experiences.

4.1.2. Vertical alignment of teacher evaluation

following three subheadings: (1) vertical alignment of teacher induc­
tion, (2) vertical alignment of teacher evaluation, and (3) horizontal
alignment of teacher induction and teacher evaluation.
4.1. Highly strategic schools
Three schools were identified as ‘highly strategic’: schools 4, 8, and
9. These schools were assigned three scores of 1, which means induction
and evaluation are strategically aligned with the school’s strategic
planning, the individual needs of teachers, and each other. In other
words, the HRM architecture in these schools contains both vertical and
horizontal alignment.
4.1.1. Vertical alignment of teacher induction
All of the highly strategic schools aligned teacher induction with the
school’s strategic planning and the individual needs of teachers.
Regarding the alignment with the school’s strategic planning, school 4
provides a general training for beginning teachers at the school board
(overarching) level, focusing on the school’s pedagogical project, vision,
and values. In addition, beginning teachers are offered sessions at the
school level which address the school’s strategic planning. In school 9,
the alignment approach is different, as the focus on the school’s strategic
planning lies within the formal feedback conversations after a class visit.
During this conversation, the mentor and the beginning teacher discuss
perspectives on ‘education and foreign languages’, as this links to the
specific vision of the school. In school 8, the school leader explicitly
appointed a mentor who is strongly committed to the school’s vision.
In highly strategic schools, teacher evaluation is aligned with the
school’s strategic planning, as well as with the individual needs of
teachers. The feedback moment after a classroom visit seems to be a
crucial moment to express this alignment. In schools 8 and 9, the school
leader pays attention to the vision of the school during these feedback
moments. Usually, this feedback is provided right after the classroom
visit.
Next to the focus on the school’s strategic planning, there is room for
expressing individual needs during the evaluation process. For example,
the evaluators in school 4 made the explicit agreement to ask questions
addressing the individual needs, feelings, and concerns of teachers.
Evaluators are given the explicit task of identifying the individual needs
of beginning teachers. In school 8, the beginning teacher values the
opportunity to address personal needs during the feedback conversa­
tions and indicates that the school leader will also follow up on them:
“During the feedback conversation, I could clarify my own point of
view. I addressed what needed to change for me to be able to do my
job. He [school leader] certainly listens to us and does something
about it and initiates the required conversations. He considers this to
be very important” (School 8, beginning teacher).
4.1.3. Horizontal alignment of teacher induction and teacher evaluation
In the highly strategic schools, mentors and evaluators base their
HRM practices on the same criteria. These criteria, in turn, are in line
with the strategic planning of the school. The school leader plays a
crucial role in this alignment. For example, in school 4 the evaluator (i.
e., school leader) informs the mentor when a teacher is underperforming

6
P. Flamand et al.
concerning a given criterion. The mentor takes this information as a
starting point for supporting activities.
Typically, the school leaders indicate that it is in the best interest of
mentoring beginning teachers that the mentor is not heavily involved in
the evaluation. A past experience of one of the mentors illustrates this:
“We made a mistake then. Normally, the school leader takes up the
role of evaluator, but back then he didn’t have time. He asked if I
could take up this task. Of course, that was a big mistake. When I
returned to the corridor, I heard: ’Aha, there he is, our new
inspector’. That is when I thought: I won’t do this again." (School 9,
mentor)
Concerning the alignment between induction and evaluation, these
schools pay close attention to the distinction between formative and
summative evaluation in general, and the role delineation of school
leaders and mentors in particular. In this regard, the relationship of trust
between mentors and beginning teachers is often emphasized.
“That’s so important as a beginning teacher to be able to function in
an environment where you can say, ’This lesson really sucked’ and
’Oh, what was I thinking?’ It’s important that you can get things off
your chest. It is so important that you can function in a safe envi­
ronment and that we create that. People need to feel safe in some
way." (School 8, school leader)
Taken together, highly strategic schools paid attention to alignment
of induction and teacher evaluation through strategically deploying
some of the key practices within the HRM system: training sessions for
beginning teachers, feedback conversations, mentor selection, group
exchange sessions, role descriptions and delineation, and shared per­
formance criteria.
4.2. Moderately strategic schools
Five schools were identified as moderately strategic: schools 2, 3, 7,
10, and 12. These schools received one score of 1 (out of three). Within
these schools, efforts are made to align HRM practices, but the HRM
architecture lacks important components of alignment to be considered
fully strategic.
4.2.1. Vertical alignment of teacher induction
Only school 10 received a score of 1 for vertical alignment of teacher
induction. The school organizes sessions focusing on the school’s stra­
tegic planning on both school board and individual school level. The
individual needs of the teachers are addressed through confidential in­
dividual meetings with a mentor.
The other schools, however, received a score of 0.5. This means that
induction activities in these schools are only vertically aligned with one
of the two aspects: strategic planning or individual needs. School 7 only
aligns induction with the school’s strategic planning through a weekend
during which new teachers are welcomed and introduced to the school’s
vision.
“The weekend is really about the pedagogical project of the school.
[…] We are a Catholic school. It is about how you can still have that
openness to Christianity, even if you are not religious.” (School 7,
mentor)
The other schools only align their induction activities with the in­
dividual needs of beginning teachers. In school 2, beginning teachers are
provided with the formal opportunity to give feedback to the induction
activities. In addition, individual needs are addressed through group
sessions during which beginning teachers can discuss their own needs
and concerns. During the feedback conversations in school 3, beginning
teachers are systematically questioned about their strengths, challenges,
and their needs regarding support and professionalization. Finally, the
mentor in school 12 has formally been given the task to identify the
individual needs of beginning teachers and to provide support in the
7
Teaching and Teacher Education 143 (2024) 104543
classroom to meet these needs.
4.2.2. Vertical alignment of teacher evaluation
Two of the moderately strategic schools (3 and 7) received a score of
1 for vertical alignment of teacher evaluation. In both cases, the eval­
uator takes into account the fit with the school’s strategic planning when
evaluating the teachers. During feedback conversations, explicit atten­
tion also goes to the individual needs of the teacher. In school 7, for
example, teachers are asked to assess their own needs before the feed­
back conversation in order to contribute actively to the evaluation
process.
Three of the moderately strategic schools (2, 10, and 12) received a
score of 0.5 for vertical alignment of teacher evaluation. These three
schools do not align teacher evaluation with the school’s strategic
planning, but they align the HRM practice with the individual needs of
teachers. The individual needs are addressed through the establishment
of an individual development plan (schools 2 and 12), questions during
feedback conversations (school 10), and self-reflection (school 12).
4.2.3. Horizontal alignment of teacher induction and teacher evaluation
Two of the moderately strategic schools (2 and 12) received a score
of 1 for horizontal alignment of teacher induction and evaluation. This is
a remarkable finding, as both schools received a score of 0.5 for the
vertical alignment of both HRM practices. A score of 1 means that the
summative and formative evaluation of teachers are based on the same
criteria. However, the criteria themselves are not aligned with the
school’s strategic planning. In other words, there is horizontal align­
ment, but the alignment is detached from the school’s strategic plan­
ning. Next to the alignment of criteria, the clear delineation of the
mentoring and evaluating roles plays an important part in these schools’
HRM architectures. The school leaders identify areas for improvement
and mentors are given the task to support the beginning teachers in
relation to these areas.
“Afterwards, there is a feedback conversation and if there are areas
for improvement, I communicate them to the mentor. She will follow
up on them.” (School 12, school leader)
Mentors do not report back to the school leader in view of evaluation.
Ensuring the trusting relationship between mentors and beginning
teachers appears to be the main goal of the efforts put in place.
Two schools (3 and 7) received a score of 0.5 for horizontal align­
ment. In both cases, the evaluator and mentor base their tasks on the
same criteria. However, mentors are expected to report to the school
leader on both the conversations they have with the beginning teachers
and their performance. Mentors and beginning teachers consider this to
be detrimental to the trusting relationship and experience tension as a
result.
“I’m still struggling with that. I still consider it to be ambiguous when
I am in a confidential conversation and I have to take notes. I am
concerned about that. I do try to limit writing things down.” (School
3, mentor)
Finally, school 10 received a score of 0. Even though there is a strong
strategic focus on induction (4.1.1.), there is no horizontal alignment
between induction and evaluation. Induction and evaluation are
completely separated. There are no mutual criteria, and there is a lack of
communication between mentor and evaluator. Not surprisingly, the
beginning teacher in this school reported receiving little to no feedback
and feeling insecure about his performance.
“Imagine, they come to observe one of my classes and they don’t like
what they see. What happens then? I don’t know. Because at this
moment, I don’t know how I function in general. I wouldn’t have had
a chance to address my flaws.” (School 10, beginning teacher)
P. Flamand et al.
4.3. Non-strategic schools
Four schools were identified as non-strategic: schools 1, 5, 6, and 11.
These schools received no scores of 1. Three of these schools (1, 5, and
11) received a score of 0 for the three components. School 6 received
three scores of 0.5. These schools are characterized by a strong lack of
(strategic) focus on HRM policy.
4.3.1. Vertical alignment of teacher induction
Three of the non-strategic schools (1, 5, and 11) received a score of
0 for vertical alignment of teacher induction. It is noteworthy that the
schools’ visions are weakly articulated (schools 1 and 11) or weakly
supported by the team of teachers (school 5). In addition, the mentoring
programs in these schools are organized in a way that offers low levels of
support, as they mainly consist of passing on practical information to the
beginning teachers. The mentor in school 1 mentions experiencing too
little time to work more in depth with the beginning teachers. In school
6, however, the strategic planning is addressed through an induction
session at the school level.
None of these schools addressed the individual needs of beginning
teachers in their induction activities. The content of the sessions offered
is not tailored to the individual needs of the beginning teachers. In two
of the schools (1 and 5), the content is purely practical information. In
schools 6 and 11, general sessions are provided at the level of the school
group.
“The school group sessions were really just repetitions of our edu­
cation in teacher training. [ …] They were way too general and about
things we’ve heard about ten times before.” (School 11, beginning
teacher)
4.3.2. Vertical alignment of teacher evaluation
Three non-strategic schools (1, 5, and 11) received a score of 0 for
vertical alignment of teacher evaluation. These schools do not have an
explicit vision. Consequently, teacher evaluation cannot be aligned with
it either. Furthermore, in schools 1 and 5, there are barely any evalua­
tion activities. In school 1, there is no feedback after a classroom visit,
and the school leader experiences far too little time to focus on evalu­
ation. In school 5, there are no classroom visits at all. In school 11, there
is a lack of formal evaluation. The school leader mainly gathers infor­
mation through informal conversations with colleagues of the beginning
teacher in question.
“I always talk to the coordinating colleague as well, because they
know that teacher way better. […] If there are problems, they have
to report them to me.” (School 11, school leader)
In general, a lack of explicit vision and/or a lack of focus on evalu­
ation hinder the vertical alignment of teacher evaluation.
School 6 received a score of 0.5. There is no focus on the strategic
planning within the evaluation practices, but the individual needs are
addressed by closely monitoring beginning teachers and providing
specific feedback regarding their classroom practice.
4.3.3. Horizontal alignment of teacher induction and teacher evaluation
Three of the non-strategic schools (1, 5, and 11) received a score of
0 for horizontal alignment of teacher induction and evaluation. The
achievement of both summative and formative objectives is hampered
by either the complete fusion of the two practices (schools 5 and 11) or
their complete isolation (school 1). In schools 5 and 11, the fusion of
both teacher induction and evaluation (i.e., evaluator and mentor are
the same person) deprives beginning teachers of a person they can
formally approach for support, without it being linked to evaluation. At
the same time, the complete isolation of both practices can be harmful as
well. In school 1, the complete isolation of both practices ensures that
the school leader does not formally consult the mentor but does call on
the findings of close colleagues of the beginning teacher. This, in turn,
8
Teaching and Teacher Education 143 (2024) 104543
creates tensions within the teaching team.
School 6 received a score of 0.5 for horizontal alignment. In this
school, the evaluator and mentors base their activities on the same
criteria. However, the trusting relationship between mentors and
beginning teachers is put at risk. All formal mentors have an evaluating
function as well. They are expected to report back to the school leader
regarding all the support activities undertaken.
5. Discussion and conclusion
In this qualitative study, we provide insights into the strategic
deployment of HRM practices in schools, as strategic HRM systems are
found to promote the functioning of organizations (Becker & Huselid,
2006; Hamadamin & Atan, 2019; Knies et al., 2018). More specifically,
we address how schools can align their teacher induction and beginning
teacher evaluation practices with the school’s strategic planning and
beginning teachers’ individual needs (i.e., vertical alignment).
Furthermore, we describe how schools can align both HRM practices
with each other (i.e., horizontal alignment), as careful alignment of
multiple HRM practices can ensure that they do not interfere with, but
rather enhance, each other’s effectiveness (Kepes & Delery, 2007; Lei­
sink & Boselie, 2014; Runhaar, 2017). Indeed, specifically for induction
and evaluation of beginning teachers, previous research has shown that
the conflicting objectives of these practices might hinder their effec­
tiveness (Hobson et al., 2009; Israel et al., 2014; Kepes & Delery, 2007).
This is one of the few studies that provides an in-depth analysis of
horizontal alignment of HRM practices in an educational context.
Our findings show that when schools aim to strategically deploy
beginning teacher induction and evaluation, they do not only pay
attention to vertical alignment but also to how these practices can
reinforce each other. This suggests that the conceptual framework
related to strategic human resource management in the private sector
might provide a valuable vantage point for the education sector as well
(cf. Knies et al., 2018; Leisink & Boselie, 2014). However, it should be
noted that our study focused on a specific subset of schools (cf. 2.1. Data
collection). Future research could reveal to what extent our findings
could be generalized.
While past studies have highlighted the shortcomings in how schools
handle human resource management (DeArmond, 2013; Vekeman et al.,
2016b), this research offers a silver lining. It suggests that at least some
schools are capable of adopting a strategic HRM perspective regarding
the induction and evaluation of beginning teachers. Based on both the
horizontal and vertical alignment of beginning teacher induction and
evaluation, we identified three types of schools: highly strategic,
moderately strategic, and non-strategic schools.
In highly strategic schools, various efforts are made to implement
HRM practices strategically. In these schools, both beginning teacher
induction and evaluation are aligned with the school’s strategic plan­
ning and beginning teachers’ individual needs. Moreover, in all cases we
observed a strong horizontal alignment, which increases the potential of
the HRM system (cf. Runhaar, 2017). Vertical alignment was addressed
through training sessions for beginning teachers, feedback conversa­
tions, thoughtful mentor selection, and group exchange sessions.
Meanwhile, horizontal alignment was pursued by clear role descriptions
for evaluators and mentors, along with shared performance criteria for
both practices.
The efforts to clearly define the roles of mentors and evaluators are
connected to the ongoing debate about whether or not to have one
person perform both roles (cf. Hobson et al., 2009). This study does not
aim to settle the argument, but it does point out that schools engaging in
strategic human resource management are, at the very least, thinking
about how to draw the boundaries between these roles. Furthermore,
successful role delineation may look completely different in varying
contexts, given the importance of other influential factors at play,
including the extent to which the professional culture is supportive and
the relationship between the school leader and teachers (Kardos et al.,
P. Flamand et al.
2001; Lillejord & Børte, 2020).
Only a few schools could be identified as highly strategic which
points to the fact that designing induction and evaluation for beginning
teachers is not evident for schools (Donaldson, 2013; Smylie & Wenzel,
2006; Vekeman et al., 2016b). More specific research on the conditions
for successful strategic HRM for beginning teachers, such as school
leadership (e.g., can an instructional leadership style promote the
implementation of strategic HRM?) and cultural school characteristics
(e.g., how can a supportive professional culture influence the imple­
mentation of strategic HRM?) is needed.
In moderately strategic schools, some efforts are made to implement
HRM practices for beginning teachers strategically, but the HRM system
cannot be considered fully strategic. In the majority of these schools,
induction and/or evaluation are aligned with teachers’ individual needs
instead of strategic planning. This result might be explained by the fact
that strategic planning itself is found to be challenging for schools
(Gurley et al., 2015; Tuytens et al., 2021). However, more research
focusing explicitly on strategic planning as a separate management
process in combination with strategic HRM is necessary to further
explore this finding. Furthermore, only in a few moderately strategic
schools we noticed a strong horizontal alignment between induction and
teacher evaluation. Actually, alignment is hindered because there is no
clear delineation of the mentoring and evaluating roles within the school
or because no mutual criteria are present.
Finally, non-strategic schools are characterized by a strong lack of
(strategic) focus on HRM of teachers. In these schools, no efforts are
made to implement HRM practices for beginning teachers strategically.
Strategic planning and individual needs are not considered when
beginning teachers are inducted or evaluated. Moreover, in all schools
no (or only a weak) horizontal alignment is noticed between induction
and evaluation. This seems to be caused either by the complete fusion of
the two practices or complete isolation. Although it occurs only in the
minority of schools in this study, it is striking to see that in some schools
beginning teachers are still left completely to their own devices although
the importance of support for beginning teachers is undisputed (Thomas
et al., 2019).
Taken together, we notice schools differ in the way they enact both
induction and evaluation of beginning teachers strategically based on
how they ensure a vertical and horizontal alignment of HRM practices.
Although all schools that are characterized by a strong vertical align­
ment of induction and evaluation also ensure that both practices are
aligned with each other, we notice that both forms of alignment do not
depend on each other. We found that in some schools induction and
evaluation fit with each other in a supportive way for beginning
teachers, while these HRM practices are not aligned with the school’s
strategic planning. In this regard, Heneman and Milanowski (2011) also
questioned the effectiveness of horizontal alignment between HRM
practices that are themselves not vertically aligned. Our findings bring
us a step further in our understanding of strategic HRM for beginning
teachers. However, we acknowledge that more research into vertical and
horizontal alignment is needed to understand which and how alignment
is related to positive outcomes of these HRM practices for both the or­
ganization and the teacher.
6. Limitations
Our study is a small-scale, qualitative study that is not representative
of the entire population of Flemish secondary schools, which means we
cannot generalize the results to other educational levels or other con­
texts. Conducting a large-scale, quantitative study would be interesting
to confirm our results in a representative sample. We acknowledge that
we only included secondary schools in our sample, and future research
would benefit from including primary schools as well. Moreover, we
realize our study is explorative in nature and focuses on only two
essential HRM practices for beginning teachers. Further studies should
take into account the alignment of induction and teacher evaluation
9
Teaching and Teacher Education 143 (2024) 104543
with other HRM practices such as selection or assignment. Although this
study offers insights on the alignment of HRM practices for beginning
teachers, more research is needed to fully understand the conditions
under which strategic HRM for beginning teachers can be realized and
how it leads to desired outcomes (e.g., retention of beginning teachers).
Finally, we mainly focused on Western literature to set up this study and
the specific national policy context might have impacted our findings. It
would be interesting to study how our findings could be translated to
other policy contexts.
7. Implications
This study shows that only a few schools could be identified as highly
strategic for both HRM practices under study. By this, it is meant that
these schools align induction and evaluation with: 1) strategic planning,
2) individual teacher needs, and 3) each other. However, this study also
indicates that the majority of the schools in this study make efforts to
install induction and evaluation for beginning teachers strategically.
This is an optimistic finding that might nuance the statement that HRM
in schools is anything but strategic (DeArmond, 2013). Possibly,
increased attention for the strategic management of (beginning) teach­
ers is paying off. Moreover, we believe this finding should encourage
schools to further attempt to develop strategic HRM practices for
beginning teachers. Schools can be stimulated and supported to analyze
and strengthen their strategic HRM practices (such as induction and
evaluation) by the introduction and presentation of the strategic HRM
conceptualization presented in this study (cf. Tuytens et al., 2021). This
approach is also referred to as ‘analytical HRM’ (Boxall, 2007), which
suggests that the core value of HRM research does not lie in propagating
‘best practices’, but in providing explanations and conceptualizations on
which practitioners can build to analyze specific HRM practices in a
contextualized way. This might help schools to reflect on the alignment
of their HRM practices and stimulate schools to reflect on achieving a
connection between different HRM practices through good strategic
planning. In this regard, a good strategic planning is a first step schools
should tackle (Janse van Vuuren & Van der Bank, 2023; Leisink &
Boselie, 2014). Yet, both the alignment of HRM practices and setting out
a good strategic planning are not easy tasks for schools. In this regard,
we feel that schools’ internal professional development should be
stimulated (e.g., by the support of external experts or by sharing good
practices regarding strategic management of beginning teachers be­
tween schools). Finally, this study also leads to practical implications for
school teams. First, this study points to the necessity of a clear set of
criteria that form a guiding framework for both induction and evalua­
tion and which are aligned with the school’s strategic planning. Second,
the interviews suggest that a clear role definition for both mentors and
evaluators is essential. It is desirable that the evaluator communicates
with the mentor about the feedback he/she gives during formative
evaluations. This ensures that the mentor can align his/her guidance
with the feedback given by the evaluator. Yet, a trusting relationship
between the mentor and teacher is at stake when the mentor reports
back to the evaluator about the progress the teacher makes.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Pieter Flamand: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation,
Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Melissa Tuytens: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – original
draft, Writing – review & editing. Eva Vekeman: Conceptualization,
Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Geert
Devos: Funding acquisition, Project administration, Supervision.
Declaration of competing interest
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
P. Flamand et al.
Data availability
The data that has been used is confidential.
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by The Research Centre “Educational
research” (Steunpunt Onderwijsonderzoek [SONO]) and was funded by
the Flemish Ministry of Education.
References
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of
Management, 17(1), 90–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108
Becker, B. E., & Huselid, M. A. (2006). Strategic human resources management: Where
do we go from here? Journal of Management, 32(6), 898–925. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0149206306293668
Belfius. (2018). Typologie van de gemeenten [Typology of the communities]. https://re
search.belfius.be/nl/typologie-gemeenten/.
Bickmore, D. L., & Bickmore, S. T. (2010). A multifaceted approach to teacher induction.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 1006–1014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tate.2009.10.043
Blömeke, S., & Klein, P. (2013). When is a school environment perceived as supportive by
beginning mathematics teachers? Effects of leadership, trust, autonomy and
appraisal on teaching quality. International Journal of Science and Mathematics
Education, 11(4), 1029–1048. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-013-9424-x
Boselie, P. (2014). Strategic human resource management: A balanced approach (2nd ed.).
London: McGraw-Hill Education.
Boxall, P., Purcell, J., & Wright, P. (2007). Human resource management: Scope,
analysis, and significance. In P. Boxall, J. Purcell, & P. Wright (Eds.), The oxford
handbook of human resource management (pp. 1–16). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
DeArmond, M. (2013). Good ideas and engagement aren’t enough: School district central
offices and the micro-politics of implementing comprehensive human resource reform.
[Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington.
Donaldson, M. L. (2013). Principals’ approaches to cultivating teacher effectiveness:
Constraints and opportunities in hiring, assigning, evaluating and developing
teachers. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(5), 838–882. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0013161X13485961
European Commission. (2013). Key data on teachers and school leaders in Europe. 2013
Edition. In Eurydice report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/publications.
Flemish Ministry of Education and Training. (2019). De tijdelijke aanstelling van bepaalde
duur en van doorlopende duur in een wervingsambt. https://data-onderwijs.vlaanderen.
be/edulex/document.aspx?docid=15412.
Frase, L. E., & Streshly, W. (1994). Lack of accuracy, feedback, and commitment in
teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 1, 47–57. https://
doi.org/10.1007/BF00972709
Gurley, D. K., Peters, G. B., Collins, L., & Fifolt, M. (2015). Mission, vision, values, and
goals: An exploration of key organizational statements and daily practice in schools.
Journal of Educational Change, 16(2), 217–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-
014-9229-x
Hamadamin, H. H., & Atan, T. (2019). The impact of strategic human resource
management practices on competitive advantage sustainability: The mediation of
human capital development and employee commitment. Sustainability, 11(20).
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205782
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational
Research, 77, 81–112.
Heneman, H. G., & Milanowski, A. T. (2011). Assessing human resource practices
alignment: A case study. Human Resource Management, 50(1), 45–64. https://doi.
org/10.1002/hrm
Herlihy, C., Karger, E., Pollard, C., Hill, H. C., Kraft, M. A., Williams, M., & Howard, S.
(2014). State and local efforts to investigate the validity and reliability of scores from
teacher evaluation systems. Teachers College Record, 116(1). https://scholar.harvard.
edu/mkraft/publications/state-and-local-efforts-investigate-validity-and-reliability-
scores-teacher.
Hobson, A. J., Ashby, P., Malderez, A., & Tomlinson, P. D. (2009). Mentoring beginning
teachers: What we know and what we don’t. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(1),
207–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.09.001
Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover,
productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal,
38(3), 635–872. https://doi.org/10.5465/256741
Ingersoll, R. M. (2012). Beginning teacher Induction: What the data tell us. Phi Delta
Kappan, 93(8), 47–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171209300811
Ingersoll, R. M., & Strong, M. (2011). The impact of induction and mentoring programs
for beginning teachers: A critical review of the research. Review of Educational
Research, 81(2). https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311403323
Israel, M., Kamman, M. L., Mccray, E. D., & Sindelar, P. T. (2014). Mentoring in action:
The interplay among professional assistance, emotional support, and evaluation.
Exceptional Children, 81(1), 45–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402914532231
Janse van Vuuren, J., & Van der Bank, F. (2023). The development of a behavioural
competency framework for school principals. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 49,
1–15. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v49i0.2050
Kardos, S. M., Johnson, S. M., Peske, H. G., Kauffman, D., & Lio, E. (2001). Counting on
colleagues: New teachers encounter the professional cultures of their schools.
10
Teaching and Teacher Education 143 (2024) 104543
Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(2), 250–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/
00131610121969316
Kepes, S., & Delery, J. E. (2007). HRM systems and the problem of internal fit. In
P. Boxall, J. Purcell, & P. M. Wright (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of human resource
management (pp. 385–404). London, UK: Oxford University Press.
Knies, E., Boselie, P., Gould-Williams, J., & Vandenabeele, W. (2018). Strategic human
resource management and public sector performance: Context matters. Milton Park,
Abingdon: Taylor & Francis.
Kraft, M. A., & Gilmour, A. (2016). Can principals promote teacher development as
evaluators? A case study of principals’ views and experiences. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 52(5), 711–753. http://eaq.sagepub.com/content
/52/5/711.
Leisink, P., & Boselie, P. (2014). Strategisch HRM voor beter onderwijs: Een bijdrage aan de
professionalisering van schoolleiders in het voortgezet onderwijs. Universiteit Utrecht,
Departement voor Bestuurs- en Organisatiewetenschap (USBO). https://www.voion.
nl/media/2767/strategischhrmvoorbeteronderwijs.pdf.
Lillejord, S., & Børte, K. (2020). Trapped between accountability and professional
learning? School leaders and teacher evaluation. Professional Development in
Education, 46(2), 274–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2019.1585384
Maulana, R., Helms-Lorenz, M., & van de Grift, W. (2015). A longitudinal study of
induction on the acceleration of growth in teaching quality of beginning teachers
through the eyes of their students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 51, 225–245.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.07.003
Mercer, J., Barker, B., & Bird, R. (2010). Human resource management in education:
Contexts, themes and impact. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203850817
Messersmith, J. G., Patel, P. C., Lepak, D. P., & Gould-Williams, J. S. (2011). Unlocking
the black box: Exploring the link between high-performance work systems and
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1105–1118. https://doi.org/
10.1037/a0024710
Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook.
London: Sage.
Nasser-Abu Alhija, F., & Fresko, B. (2010). Socialization of new teachers: Does induction
matter? Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(8), 1592–1597. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tate.2010.06.010
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2014). TALIS 2013 results.
An international perspective on teaching and learning. Paris: OECD. https://www.oecd.
org/education/school/talis-2013-results.htm.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2017). Education policy
outlook: Belgium. https://www.oecd.org/education/Education-Policy-Outlook-Cou
ntry-Profile-Belgium.pdf.
Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ronfeldt, M., & McQueen, K. (2017). Does new teacher induction really improve
retention? Journal of Teacher Education, 68(4), 394–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0022487117702
Runhaar, P. (2017). How can schools and teachers benefit from human resources
management? Conceptualising HRM from content and process perspectives.
Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 45(4), 639–656. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1741143215623786
Schaefer, L., Long, J. S., & Jean Clandinin, D. (2012). Questioning the research on early
career teacher attrition and retention. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 58(1),
106–121. https://doi.org/10.11575/ajer.v58i1.55559
Smith, T. M., & Ingersoll, R. M. (2004). What are the effects of induction and mentoring
on beginning teacher turnover? American Educational Research Journal, 41(3),
681–714. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312041003681
Smylie, M. A., & Wenzel, S. (2006). Promoting instructional improvement: A strategic human
resource management perspective. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School
Research.
Struyven, K., & Vanthournout, G. (2014). Teachers’ exit decisions: An investigation into
the reasons why newly qualified teachers fail to enter the teaching profession or why
those who do enter do not continue teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 43,
37–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.06.002
Thomas, L., Tuytens, M., Moolenaar, N., Devos, G., Kelchtermans, G., & Vanderlinde, R.
(2019). Teachers’ first year in the profession: The power of high-quality support.
Teachers and Teaching, 25(2), 160–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13540602.2018.1562440
Tuytens, M., & Devos, G. (2010). The influence of school leadership on teachers‟
perception of teacher evaluation policy. Educational Studies, 36(5), 521–536. https://
doi.org/10.1080/03055691003729054
Tuytens, M., & Devos, G. (2011). Stimulating professional learning through teacher
evaluation : An impossible task for the school leader? Teaching and Teacher
Education, 27(5), 891–899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.02.004
Tuytens, M., Vekeman, E., & Devos, G. (2021). Strategic human resource management in
primary and secondary schools. An explorative study in Flanders (Belgium) (Vol. 49).
Educational Management Administration & Leadership. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1741143221998706
Tuytens, M., Vekeman, E., & Devos, G. (2023). A focus on students’ and teachers’
learning through strategic human resource management. School Effectiveness and
School Improvement, 34(2), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2023.2172049
Van Beurden, J., Van Veldhoven, M., & Van De Voorde, K. (2021). How employee
perceptions of HR practices in schools relate to employee work engagement and job
performance. Journal of Management and Organization, 1–19. https://doi.org/
10.1017/jmo.2021.66
Vekeman, E., Devos, G., & Valcke, M. (2016a). The relationship between principals’
configuration of a bundle of HR practices for new teachers and teachers’ person-
organisation fit. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(5),
835–855. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1239221
P. Flamand et al.
Vekeman, E., Devos, G., & Valcke, M. (2016b). Human resource architectures for new
teachers in flemish primary education. Educational Management Administration &
Leadership, 44(6), 970–995. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143215587309
Wilkinson, A., Bacon, N., Redman, T., & Snell, S. (2010). The SAGE handbook of human
resource management. https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857021496
11
Teaching and Teacher Education 143 (2024) 104543
Wright, P. M., Dunford, B. B., & Snell, S. A. (2001). Human resources and the resource
based view of the firm. Journal of Management, 27(6), 701–721. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0149-2063(01)00120-9
Yusko, B., & Feiman-Nemser, S. (2008). Embracing contraries: Combining assistance and
assessment in new teacher induction. Teachers College Record, 110(5), 923–953.
https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810811000504