**7. Limitation of this review**

The first limitation of this review is the lack of empirical data to test the assumptions of HR attribution theories in the Nigerian context. Empirical data could provide a researcher with actionable evidence needed for evaluating the HR context for better motivational and organisational outcomes. To conduct this research and due to the nascent stage of HR process research in the Nigeria context, I suggest integrating both qualitative and quantitative research methods (mixed method). This will

#### *Perceptions of and Reactions to the HR Implementation Process in Nigeria DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110321*

help to develop rich and broader insights about the nature of HR practices in the Nigerian context. Specifically, research may first adopt a qualitative research method (e.g. interview or focus group) to understand the HRM context and other emergent themes that could guide subsequent data collection. Then, supplement it with the quantitative method to formulate generalisable explanations about HR attributions to the wider organisation's population in Nigeria. The second limitation is the lack of consideration for individual difference factors that may affect the employee HR attribution process. Hewett et al. [10] suggested that employee HR attribution is likely to be shaped by their values, personalities, goals, needs, social roles, and identities, as well as their past experiences, competencies, and expectancies. Considering these individual factors is likely to explain employees' attributional process beyond the socio-cultural and economic contextual issues raised in this review. As such, future research might benefit from a study that considers individual factor variables alongside contextual factors to capture the multilevel factors affecting employee HR attribution in the Nigerian context. Lastly, this review considered only a singular HR practice (recruitment and selection) at the department level and the line manager's leadership behaviour at the operational level. As such, there is an opportunity to consider other HR practices such as employee involvement at both department and operational levels. Differences in an employee's perception of involvement may influence how they make sense of their organisation's HR practices. Research could also examine whether an employee's perception of involvement at the department level or their perception of involvement at the operation level matters more in the HR attribution process. This will help diagnose whether general HR practices are more important to HR attribution or the discretionary HR practices at the operational level.

In addition, there is also a tendency for an employee to interpret particular HR practices differently from other HR practices. For example, a particular HR practice (e.g. pay and rewards) that fulfils an employee's personal needs and goals might be interpreted more positively than other HR practices (employee involvement). Such an HR attribution process may be present in the Nigerian context where there is a cultural expectation for organisational control and lower employee involvement than in the Western context. Moreover, the poor economic conditions in Nigeria means that employee may prioritise monetary rewards (extrinsic factors) over employment involvement (intrinsic factors). As such, research may consider examining different HR attribution processes across different HR practices. This will help the organisation streamline its resources to crucial motivational mechanisms in the organisation.
