This article presents an overview of empirical research on the relationship between human resource management (HRM) and performance, analyzing 104 studies published in prominent international journals between 1994 and 2003. The authors examine the design of these studies, including the primary level of analysis, the identity of respondents, dominant theoretical frameworks, how HRM and performance are conceptualized and operationalized, and the inclusion of control and contingency variables. They also explore how each study depicts the "black box" stage between HRM and performance, highlighting both disparities and commonalities in the treatment of these components. The findings reveal a mix of methodological approaches, with quantitative surveys being the most common, and a lack of consensus on the specific HR practices and performance outcomes to be included. The authors note that while the resource-based view and contingent frameworks dominate, other theoretical perspectives are also important. They emphasize the need for more detailed exploration of the "black box" stage, where HRM interventions are transformed into performance outcomes, and suggest that employee-derived outcomes, such as productivity and quality, can serve as mediating factors between soft HRM outcomes and financial performance. The article concludes by discussing the implications for future research and practitioners, advocating for a more comprehensive and multi-dimensional approach to understanding the complex relationship between HRM and performance.This article presents an overview of empirical research on the relationship between human resource management (HRM) and performance, analyzing 104 studies published in prominent international journals between 1994 and 2003. The authors examine the design of these studies, including the primary level of analysis, the identity of respondents, dominant theoretical frameworks, how HRM and performance are conceptualized and operationalized, and the inclusion of control and contingency variables. They also explore how each study depicts the "black box" stage between HRM and performance, highlighting both disparities and commonalities in the treatment of these components. The findings reveal a mix of methodological approaches, with quantitative surveys being the most common, and a lack of consensus on the specific HR practices and performance outcomes to be included. The authors note that while the resource-based view and contingent frameworks dominate, other theoretical perspectives are also important. They emphasize the need for more detailed exploration of the "black box" stage, where HRM interventions are transformed into performance outcomes, and suggest that employee-derived outcomes, such as productivity and quality, can serve as mediating factors between soft HRM outcomes and financial performance. The article concludes by discussing the implications for future research and practitioners, advocating for a more comprehensive and multi-dimensional approach to understanding the complex relationship between HRM and performance.