Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Coordinators:
6263070
Abstract
In the human resource management-organizational performance research context, this paper
investigates the influence of human resource practices on employee attitudes and behaviors
as an important stage in the process linking human resource practices to organizational
performance. Although there have been several studies analyzing the extent to which highperformance human resource practices influence work attitudes and behaviors , there is still
a great interest in further enhancing the existing models and replicate previous findings.
Hence, this study proposes a moderated mediation model where person-organization fit
moderates the strength of the high-performance human resource practices - in-role
performance relationship as mediated by job satisfaction and organizational commitment.
The mediation and moderated mediation hypotheses are tested using two SPSS macros
developed by Preacher & Hayes (2007). Results indicate that employees perceptions of highperformance human resource practices are positively related to job satisfaction, affective
commitment and normative commitment. Moreover, job satisfaction, affective commitment
and normative commitment mediate the high-performance human resource practices - in-role
performance link and person-organization fit moderates the strength of the mediated
relationship between perceptions of high-performance HR practices and in-role performance
via job satisfaction.
Table of Contents
Abstract .............................................................................................................................................. 2
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 4
2. Theoretical background and hypothesis development .................................................... 7
2.1 Perceptions of HPHR practices ..................................................................................................................7
2.2 High-Performance HR practices and work attitudes ......................................................................8
2.3 The mediating role of job satisfaction and organizational commitment ............................ 14
2.4 The moderating role of person - organization fit........................................................................... 18
3. Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 22
3.1 Sample and procedure ................................................................................................................................ 22
3.2 Measurements ................................................................................................................................................. 23
4. Data analysis and results ........................................................................................................ 25
4.1 Mediation analysis......................................................................................................................................... 27
4.2 Moderated mediation analysis ................................................................................................................ 30
5. Discussion.................................................................................................................................... 34
6. Strengths and limitations of the study ................................................................................ 40
7. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 41
Appendix .......................................................................................................................................... 42
Perceptions of HPHR practices - Questionnaire items ........................................................................ 42
Job satisfaction - Questionnaire items ........................................................................................................ 43
Organizational commitment Questionnaire items ............................................................................ 44
In-role performance - Questionnaire items.............................................................................................. 45
Person-Organization fit Questionnaire items ...................................................................................... 45
References ....................................................................................................................................... 46
1. Introduction
In the past 20 years, the field of strategic human resource management (HRM) has focused
on two major research directions: first, demonstrate that HRM practices can support
organizations to achieve their performance goals and second, gain a better understanding
of the processes through which the relationship between HRM practices and organizational
performance occurs. Scholars have devoted a large number of empirical studies trying to
demonstrate the relationship between HRM practices and organizational performance and
have provided extensive proof that systems of HR practices such as high-performance HR
(HPHR) practices are associated with different measures of organizational performance
(Arthur, 1994; Huselid, 1995; MacDuffie, 1995; Appelbaum, Bailey, Berg, & Kalleberg, 2000;
Guthrie, 2001; Wright, Gardner, Moynihan, & Allen, 2005). However, the process through
which these practices influence organizational performance has received less empirical
attention (Purcell, 2003; Wright et al., 2005) and the topic continues to be very appealing
to the field of strategic HRM.
Some authors have suggested that there are mediating mechanisms through which
the process takes place (Dyer & Reeves, 1995; Becker, Billings, Eveleth, & Gilbert, 1996;
Guest, 1997; Wright, Gardner, & Moynihan, 2003). More specifically, Dyer & Reeves (1995)
proposed that HR practices have an immediate impact on proximal outcomes such as
employees attitudes (e.g. satisfaction, commitment) and behaviors (e.g. turnover,
absenteeism, job performance) that further impact more distal outcomes such as
organizational and market-based outcomes (productivity, profitability, stock price).
Following this sequential chain, Becker, Huselid, Pickus, & Spratt (1997) argued that it is
critical to have a thorough understanding of the relationship between HR practices and
employee outcomes before making further connections with organizational performance.
Despite this suggestion, a limited number of studies have analyzed the relationship
between HR practices and employee attitudes and work behaviors - such as job satisfaction
(e.g. Macky & Boxall, 2007), commitment (e.g. Tsui, Pearce, Porter, & Tripoli, 1997;
Whitener, 2001; Macky & Boxall, 2007; Kehoe & Wright, 2010), trust-in-management (e.g.
Whitener, 2001; Macky & Boxall, 2007), well-being ( Appelbaum et al., 2000; Delaney &
4
Godard, 2001; Guest, 2002), organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) , absenteeism and
turnover (e.g. Kehoe & Wright, 2010) - and even fewer research papers focused on
attitudes and behaviors as mediating mechanisms between HR and organizational
performance (e.g. Sun, Aryee, & Law, 2007; Takeuchi, Lepak, Wang, & Takeuchi, 2007;
Gong, Law, Chang, & Xin, 2009). In addition, the majority of these studies assessed the
impact of managerial perceptions of HR practices on employees attitudes and behaviors
rather than employee perceptions of HR practices, which are more likely to have a stronger
influence (Guest, 2001; Bowen & Ostroff, 2004; Edgar & Geare, 2005). For instance, Kehoe
& Wright (2010) are among the few authors who proposed employees perceptions of HR
practices in relation to affective commitment, OCB, turnover and absenteeism. Thus, there
is still a great interest in finding further evidence about the linkages between HR practices
and employee attitudes and behaviors.
This paper seeks to provide additional insight in the relationship between employee
perceptions of HPHR practices and employee attitudes and behaviors by examining the
mechanisms that link HPHR practices to individual performance. Specifically, the paper
proposes that perceived HPHR practices relate to in-role performance as mediated by
employee satisfaction and commitment. Furthermore, the paper introduces perceived
person-organization fit (PO fit) as a possible moderator of the mediated relationship. The
reasoning behind this proposition stems from recent calls in the literature for examining
the moderating role of fit between employees and their environment (KristofBrown,
Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005) on work outcomes. As Kristof (1996) notes, more positive
outcomes will result if employees work in an environment that fits their personal
characteristics. Thus, employees attitudinal and behavioral reactions to HPHR practices
might depend upon the extent to which they match the organization they work for.
In addition, it is proposed that an empirical model which simultaneously examines
job satisfaction and organizational commitment as the mediating mechanism in the HR
practicesin-role performance link and PO fit as the moderator, contributes to the
literature in several ways: it focuses on the effects of employees perceptions of HPHR
practices instead of managers perceptions on employees attitudes and behaviors, it adds
to the existing work that links HR practices and job satisfaction and organizational
5
commitment, it connects HPHR practices to PO fit, thus linking the PO fit with and HRM
literature and hopefully enhances the existing theory linking HR practices and work
behaviors.
The paper begins by discussing perceptions of HPHR practices and their
relationship with employees attitudes and behaviors (with an emphasis on job satisfaction,
organizational commitment and in-role performance) and examines the moderating role of
PO fit. Next, the research methodology and results are reported and finally the discussion
and limitations of the study are presented.
Perceptions of
Person-Organization
fit
Job satisfaction
Affective
commitment
Perceptions of High
Performance HR
Practices
Continuance
commitment
In-role performance
Normative
commitment
performance.
Based on this triple role and after reviewing previous research in the area of HPHR
practices, this paper selected for empirical testing a set of HR practices gathered by Sun et
al. (2007). This set included ability-enhancing practices and training opportunities such as
hiring selectivity and formal training programs; motivation-enhancing practices such as
incentive rewards for individual and group performance and results-oriented performance
appraisals, opportunities for upward mobility and employment security; and opportunityenhancing practices such as decision-making participation, open communication with
superiors and suggestions for improvement.
7
Within the previous research connecting HPHR practices and employee attitudes and
behaviors, as noted in the introduction, the majority of existing studies reported
management evaluation of HR practices, neglecting the views of employees (e.g. Arthur,
1994). Since previous empirical evidence suggests that there are significant perceptual
differences between managers and employees concerning HR practices (Appelbaum et al.,
2000; Kane, Crawford, & Grant, 1999; Liao, Toya, Lepak, & Hong, 2009), a more intuitively
appealing approach would be to consider employee perceptions of HR practices instead of
manager perceptions. Bowen & Ostroff (2004) and Parker (1998) state that employees
attitudinal and behavioral reactions are more likely to depend on the way they perceive HR
practices. Moreover, Nishii, Lepak, & Schneider (2008) indicate that employee perceptions
of the HR practices form as a result of the way line managers implement the HR practices.
Therefore, following these suggestions, it is argued that employees perceptions of HR
practices - as predictors of attitudes and behaviors - are a better measurement of HR
practices than managers ratings and this is the approach chosen for this study.
What is more, the present research seeks to distinguish itself from the majority of
the studies by measuring the intensity of HPHR practices (the extent to which the practices
are operationalized at the workplace) rather than assessing their presence which involves
yes/no response format which was used in the past (e.g. Edgar & Geare, 2005; Wright et al.,
2005). The downside of evaluating HR practices by presence and from a managerial
perspective is that even if a manager declares that the practice is used in the company,
there is no indication of how well the practice is implemented or to what extent the
practice actually exists on the work-floor (Edgar & Geare, 2005).
2004). Job satisfaction as well as employee commitment are very important attitudes in an
organization as they incorporate employees feelings and thoughts about their job and
organization itself. These feelings arise from the actual experiences that employees have at
work (Olson & Zanna, 1993). Moreover, these outcomes are considered core concepts in
the HRM literature as a large number of studies point out their relevance for the HRM
performance literature, linking them directly to various measures of performance (e.g.
Arthur, Khapova, & Wilderom, 2005; Rioux & Penner, 2001), in a variety of contexts, thus
emphasizing their broad use and importance.
In a workplace where HPHR practices are effectively implemented and where
employees perceive their relationship with their employer as a mutual partnership, it is
more likely that employees respond back with feelings of satisfaction, attachment and
obligation towards their employer. Furthermore, these feelings translate into positive work
behaviors such as job performance. For instance, Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton (2001),
in their employee level meta-analysis, showed that job satisfaction is correlated to
individual job performance.
The relationship between perceived HPHR practices and employee attitudes such as
satisfaction and organizational commitment can be explained by the social exchange
theory, which states that the voluntary actions of individuals are motivated by the returns
they are expected to bring from others . . . (with the) exact nature (of the return) never
specified in advance but . . . left to the discretion of the one who makes it (Blau, 1986, p.
91-92). Thus, organizations foster mutual transactions between employees and employers
and this social exchange determines unspecified particular, when organizations convey
their good intentions towards obligations (Konovsky, 2000). In particular, this induces
feelings of obligation on the part of employees to respond positively to these intentions
with attitudes and behaviors beneficial to the organizations (Aryee, Budhwar, & Chen,
2002).
Job satisfaction, the first employee outcome of interest in this paper, is one of the
most studied variables in the organizational behavior research due to its relevance for
employees well-being and its association with important outcomes such as OCB ( Williams
& Anderson, 1991; Bolon, 1997) and turnover ( Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002; Iverson &
9
Currivan, 2003). In general, job satisfaction is defined by most authors as the attitude that
employees have toward their jobs and different related aspects of their job (Lofquist &
Dawis, 1969, p. 53; Porter, Lawler, & Hackman, 1975, p. 53-4; Locke & Henne, 1986, p. 21).
For instance, Locke (1976, p. 1300) stated that job satisfaction is a pleasurable or positive
emotional state, resulting from the appraisal of ones job experiences.
Feelings of satisfaction and dissatisfaction are recognized through employees
responses toward their jobs, supervisors, co-workers and work climate. Studies have
demonstrated that job satisfaction is related to day-to-day satisfaction of the individual
(Rode, 2004) and have confirmed that employee attitudes towards the organization are
driven by their satisfaction (Naud, Desai, & Murphy, 2003) . Thus, given these findings, it
appears to be very important for organizations to direct their efforts and resources toward
keeping their employees satisfied.
Research in the HRM literature has broadly discussed the effects of HR practices on
job satisfaction and the results seem to be mixed. On the one hand, some studies suggested
that HR practices such as performance related pay and involvement practices were linked
to lower job satisfaction, because of their association with higher work effort (e.g.
Marchington & Wilkinson, 2005; Green, 2006). On the other hand, other studies (e.g. Guest,
2002) revealed that HR practices such as direct participation practices and a good working
climate in general were associated with higher employee satisfaction. Nevertheless, there
is not so much work that investigates the effects of systems of HPHR practices on job
satisfaction, but the findings indicate that HPHR practices have positive effects on job
satisfaction (Appelbaum et al., 2000). Furthermore, in a study examining the influence of
innovative HR practices on several indicators of employee well-being (e.g. job satisfaction,
task involvement, commitment, empowerment, citizenship behavior), Delaney & Godard
(2001) showed that
influence, while increased levels of HPHR practices have a weaker or even negative effect
on job satisfaction.
As stated above, HPHR practices are intended to offer employees the opportunity to
participate in decision making, to improve their skills and to motivate them. It is argued
that these practices have an impact on the work environment, increasing the
10
communication among workers and creating good working conditions and a friendly
climate. As such, employees are assumed to appreciate more these characteristics and to
experience greater job satisfaction. For instance, Appelbaum et al. (2000) state that
participation in decision-making creates trust between employees and their supervisors
and leads to employees having a better perception of the importance of their job. Thus, the
first hypothesis of this paper is posited as follows:
Hypothesis 1: Perceptions of HPHR practices will be positively related to job satisfaction.
Another employee outcome of interest in the model proposed in this paper is
organizational commitment. The notion has been described as a core focus of HRM,
fundamental for the effectiveness and well-being of an organization, being the "central
feature that distinguishes HRM from traditional personnel management" (Storey, 1995, p.
112). Mowday, Porter, & Dubin (1974) and Steers (1975) argue that committed employees
may perform better than those who are less committed. It has also been suggested that
organizational commitment is an important indicator of organizational effectiveness.
Hence, these statements uncover the importance and implications of organizational
commitment for the organization theory.
The concept of organizational commitment started to receive a lot of interest in the
1970s and since then it has been defined and conceptualized in various ways. Buchanan,
(1974) states in his paper that overall, commitment is defined by most scholars as being
the bond between an employees and the organization they work for. Bateman & Strasser
(1984) define it as multidimensional in nature, involving an employees loyalty to the
organization, willingness to exert effort on behalf of the organization, degree of goal and
value congruency with the organization, and desire to maintain membership (p.95).
Furthermore, Meyer & Allen (1997) defined a committed employee as being one who stays
with an organization, attends work regularly, puts in a full day and more, protects
corporate assets, and believes in the organizational goals.
Buchanan (1974) and Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian (1974) identified three major
components of organizational commitment: (1) identification: employees' embrace the
11
organizations goals and values as their own; (2) involvement: the employee's willingness
to show their effort for the well-being of the organization and (3) loyalty: the employees
emotions towards the organization and the desire to remain in the organization. These
three components constitute only the affective dimension of organizational commitment. In
1991, Meyer & Allen added two more dimensions to the construct, namely continuance
commitment and the normative commitment. Continuance commitment represents the
willingness to maintain membership in the organization because of the perceived costs of
leaving the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991). These costs might refer to relationships
with other employees, things that are special to the organization such as years of
employment or benefits that the employee may receive (Reichers, 1985). Normative
commitment refers to the feeling of obligation that an employee experiences towards the
organization and the workplace (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Further research conducted by
Meyer, Allen, & Smith (1993) showed that employees with affective commitment remain
in the organization because they want to, those with a strong continuance commitment
remain because they have to and those with a normative commitment remain because they
feel that they have to (p. 3).
The
affective
dimension
of
commitment
has
been
the
most
popular
opportunities generate specific firm expertise that will make the employees decision to
quit, harder.
13
Finally, the normative dimension of commitment comprises the moral facet of commitment
that ties employees to the organization. Employees feel that they have an obligation toward
their employer and that remaining in the organization is the right thing to do. These
feelings might stem from their identification with the organization values and culture and
from the fact that the organization invested in them through the HR practices (Meyer &
Allen, 1997). Furthermore, it may arise from the benefits provided by the organization such
as secure employment, training and career development opportunities that induce feelings
of obligation for the employees to reciprocate with loyalty. In light of the arguments
presented above, the following hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis 2b: Perceptions of HPHR practices will be positively related to continuance
commitment.
Hypothesis 2c: Perceptions of HPHR practices will be positively related to normative
commitment.
instance, they might perform better than those who are less committed (Wright et al.,
2003), behavior that further impacts organizational performance.
Employee performance is the last outcome of interest in this paper and is defined
here as in-role performance or task proficiency. Williams & Anderson (1991) described inrole performance as the work behavior that is related to the duties and responsibilities that
are formally specified in the employment contract. Moreover, Liao, Toya, Lepak & Hong
(2009) referred to it as the knowledge, skills and abilities and motivation to perform. While
at the organizational level, it has been proven that systems of HR practices contribute to
the attainment of organizational performance (Becker et al., 1996; Huselid, 1995), it is still
unclear how bundles of HR practices influence performance at the individual level ( Guest,
1997; Ferris, Hochwater, Buckley, Harrell-Cook, & Frink, 1999; Wright & Boswell, 2002).
Scholars argued that a range of practices such as careful selection, training programs,
incentive pay and employee involvement in decision-making processes improve the
knowledge, skills and abilities ad increase motivation that stimulate employee performance
(Huselid, 1995). Since task performance depends on the ability and motivation of the
employee (Dyer & Reeves, 1995) , it can be stated that these practices drive the employees
to use their technical skills and knowledge to perform their tasks. This argument is also
supported by a very recent research conducted by Chang & Chen (2011) that showed that
HPHR practices influence employee in-role performance by enhancing the knowledge skills
and abilities of the employees. However, this paper proposes that the signals that the
organization sends through HR practices do not directly affect in-role performance, but
rather indirectly through attitudes like job satisfaction and organizational commitment.
In the previous section of the study, it was hypothesized that HPHR practices are
positively linked to job satisfaction and organizational commitment via social exchanges. It
is further proposed that satisfied employees are more likely have better performance
results. The job satisfaction - job performance relationship represents one of the most
interesting topics in the organizational psychology (Judge et al., 2001). The premise of this
relationship is that attitudes entail behavioral implications (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1973;
Fishbein, 1973). Previous research studies on the job satisfaction-job performance have
suggested that there is a relationship between job satisfaction and job performance (Petty,
15
McGee, & Cavender, 1984), yet results indicate weak correlations. For instance, Iaffaldano
& Muchinsky (1985) performed a review of the job satisfaction-job performance literature
and found that the correlation between the two is about .17. According to Organ (1988),
this weak relationship might result due to the limited definition used of job performance.
Nonetheless, a more recent meta-analysis Judge et al. (2001) showed that the correlation
coefficient between job satisfaction and job performance was at 0.30. Moreover, Eagly &
Chaiken (1993) argue that "In general, people who evaluate an attitude object favorably
tend to engage in behaviors that foster or support it, and people who evaluate an attitude
object unfavorably tend to engage in behaviors that hinder or oppose it" (p. 12). Drawing
on the arguments presented above, it can be argued that HPHR practices influences
positive job behaviors such as in-role performance through job satisfaction. Thus, it is
hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 3: Job satisfaction mediates the relationship between perceptions of HPHR
practices and in-role performance.
Over the past years, researchers have analyzed the effects of affective and normative
commitment on performance. Meyer & Allen (1991) suggested that both affective and
normative commitment are positively related to job performance, yet normative
commitment is less associated with job performance. Further findings showed that
normative commitment was either positively, negatively or non-related to performance
(Allen & Meyer, 1996).
Affective commitment is the most studied dimension in organizational commitment
literature mainly because of its effects on behaviors that are advantageous for
organizations (Riketta, 2002) . One of these behaviors is job performance (Mowday, Porter,
& Steers, 1982; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Randall, 1990; Meyer & Allen, 1997; Randall,
Cropanzano, Bormann, & Birjulin, 1999). An explanation for this premise is that attached
employees are more likely to invest more effort in their work. Previous empirical work
found moderate correlations between affective commitment and job performance
(Mowday et al., 1982; Randall, 1990; Cohen, 1991; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Allen & Meyer,
16
1996) and the meta-analysis of Mathieu & Zajac (1990) also found that affective
commitment is associated with job performance. Moreover, empirical results from Meyer,
Stanley, Herscovitch & Topolnytsky (2002) show that normative commitment is associated
with job performance to a lesser extent than affective commitment.
As far as the relationship between continuance commitment and performance is
concerned, prior research suggests that there is a negative relationship between the two
concepts (Meyer, Paunonen, Gellatly, Goffin, & Jackson, 1989; Konovsky & Cropanzano,
1991). Some of the explanations offered for these results are based on the fact that
employees with continuance commitment think that they have no other alternatives but to
stay in the organization and as a consequence they behave in a way that affects their
performance results (Meyer & Allen, 1997). Other studies however indicated that there is
no relationship at all between continuance commitment and in-role performance (Mayer &
Schoorman, 1992; Hackett, Bycio, & Hausdorf, 1994; Somers & Birnbaum, 1998). However,
this research proposes that the two concepts might be connected in the sense that the
employees who are willing to maintain membership even they do not want to still have
good performance results because of their fear of being laid off . Another reason could be
the related to their future need for positive references when they decide to pursuit another
job. Based on the arguments provided above and on the hypothesized relationship between
HPHR practices and affective, continuance and normative commitment, the next
hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis 4a: Affective commitment mediates the relationship between perceptions HPHR
practices and in-role performance.
Hypothesis 4b: Continuance commitment mediates the relationship between perceptions
HPHR practices and in-role performance.
Hypothesis 4c: Normative commitment mediates the relationship between perceptions HPHR
practices and in-role performance.
17
researched, comprising needs-structure fit (Bretz Jr, Ash, & Dreher, 1989; Bretz Jr & Judge,
1994), goal congruence (Vancouver & Schmitt, 1991), personalityclimate fit (Christiansen,
Villanova, & Mikulay, 1997) and value congruence (Meglino, Ravlin, & Adkins, 1989;
O'Reilly, Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991; Judge & Cable, 1997). However, as noted in the
literature review on PO fit performed by Piasentin & Chapman (2006), the latter has been
the most common operationalization of PO fit.
The present study considers for analysis the perceived PO fit, which indicates the
extent to which the employees believe their personal values are similar to the
organizational culture and values (Kristof, 1996; Cable & DeRue, 2002). The reason for
focusing on perceptions of PO fit instead of actual or objective PO fit, which entails a
comparative analysis between answers about fit provided by employees on the one side
and by the employer on the other side (Kristof, 1996), is that people's perceptions of
reality actually drive them to react in certain ways. Therefore, as long as employees
perceive a good fit with their organization, it is no longer important if the actual fit exists
(Thomas William & Thomas Dorthy, 1928). Consequently, perceived fit is thought to be a
better predictor of work outcomes such as satisfaction and commitment, than the actual
congruence between employees and organizations (Endler & Magnusson, 1976; Cable &
Judge, 1997; Judge & Cable, 1997). The importance of PO fit has been revealed by
18
numerous empirical research studies (e.g. Caldwell & O'Reilly, 1990; Judge & Ferris, 1992;
Judge, Cable, Boudreau, & Bretz Jr, 1995; Kristof, 1996) which argued that when there is a
greater fit between characteristics of individuals and the characteristics of the organization
they work for, the more positive work related outcomes will be achieved. Posner, Kouzes, &
Schmidt (1985) stated that if the employee perceives a good fit with the organization he or
she works for, then it is likely that feelings satisfaction, commitment will result. Empirical
evidence supports the idea that high levels of value congruence between employees and
their organizations lead to certain positive outcomes, such as job satisfaction and
organizational commitment (Chatman, 1991). Hence, PO fit can be considered as an
essential element in keeping employees committed which is so necessary in a tight labor
market and a competitive business environment.
Although previously it was argued that the relationship between perceptions of
HPHR practices and in-role performance is mediated by job satisfaction and organizational
commitment, it is expected that the strength of this relationship will be different for
different levels of PO fit. As such, perceived PO fit is proposed as a moderator of the
influence of perceptions of HRM on in-role performance that occurs through job
satisfaction and affective, continuance, normative commitment.
There are two arguments for advancing such a proposition. First, employees
reactions to HPHR practices might rely on their perception of fit with the organization they
work for. Erdogan & Bauer (2005) argued that employees who match the values of the
organization understand better the organizational signals and needs due to their higher PO
fit. Consequently, the influence of HPHR practices on attitudes is more likely to be attained.
A very recent research that supports this argument showed that the relationship between
perceived HPHR practices and job satisfaction is moderated by PO fit (Boon, Den Hartog,
Boselie, & Paauwe, 2011). Second, it is expected that employees with higher PO fit display
attitudes that are consistent with what the organization wants to achieve through the
HPHR practices. For instance, it is argued that the greater match between employees
values and the organization values would strengthen the effectiveness of HPHR practices in
eliciting positive attitudes and behaviors.
19
In contrast, it is suggested that employees with a lower PO fit are less likely to understand
what the organizations wants to achieve through the HR practices and this may result in a
weaker role of HPHR practices in predicting satisfaction and commitment that further
influence in-role performance. Moreover, if employees perceive a misfit with their
organization, they might experience feelings of incompetence, stress and anxiety.
Hypothesis 3 and H4 outlined above suggest that job satisfaction on the one hand
and organizational commitment on the other mediates the effect of perceived HPHR
practices on in-role performance. The fact that the mediated relationship between
perceived HR practices and in-role performance is also expected to depend on the level of
PO fit complicates the mediation into a "moderated mediation" ( James & Brett, 1984;
Baron & Kenny, 1986; Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes, 2007) in which the relationship between
the independent variable and the mediator is moderated by another variable. To support
the hypotheses, it is therefore necessary to establish this moderated mediation and show
that there is significant interaction of PO fit and HPHR practices in predicting job
satisfaction and commitment, which in turn affect in-role performance. Therefore, on the
basis of PO fit theory, the arguments presented and previous empirical research, it is
argued that PO fit should strengthen the role of job satisfaction and the three components
organizational commitment in mediating the effects of HRM perceptions and in-role
performance and the following hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis 5: PO fit moderates the strength of the mediated relationship between
perceptions of HRM and in-role performance via job satisfaction such that the indirect effect is
stronger under high levels of PO fit than under lower levels of PO fit.
Hypothesis 6a: PO fit moderates the strength of the mediated relationship between
perceptions of HRM and in-role performance via affective commitment such that the indirect
effect is stronger under high levels of PO fit than under lower levels of PO fit.
20
Hypothesis 6b: PO fit moderates the strength of the mediated relationship between
perceptions of HRM and in-role performance via continuance commitment such that the
indirect effect is stronger under high levels of PO fit than under lower levels of PO fit.
Hypothesis 6c: PO fit moderates the strength of the mediated relationship between
perceptions of HRM and in-role performance via normative commitment such that the
indirect effect is stronger under high levels of PO fit than under lower levels of PO fit.
21
3. Methodology
3.1 Sample and procedure
The sample was part of a larger study on HRM, employee attitudes, behaviors and
performance conducted by the HRM/OB Department at the University of Amsterdam.
Respondents from Europe, United States and China were invited to participate in the study.
The research was conducted at the individual level and the data were collected from two
sources: employees and their supervisors.
satisfaction and organizational commitment and the supervisors rated the in-role
performance of their subordinates.
The data was gathered over a 3 months period, using two self-administered online
questionnaires, one dedicated to the employee and the other dedicated to the supervisor.
The employee survey contained 306 questions and took around 25 minutes to complete
and the supervisor survey contained 103 questions and took around 10 minutes to
complete. Moreover, both surveys had two language versions: English and Chinese. The
employees were approached through press releases and social media websites.
At the beginning, an e-mail invitation with a link to the survey was sent to the
employees. After filling the questionnaire, the employees invited their supervisors to
participate to the study by forwarding them the link to the supervisor survey. Weekly
reminders were sent during the data collection process, both to employees and
supervisors. The responses were exported to SPSS 19 for analysis.
Out of 387 sent invitations, 229 employee questionnaires and 131 complete sets of
employee-supervisor dyads were received, thus yielding a response rate of 59% and 34%
respectively. The majority of the employee-supervisor dyads (63,4%) worked in China,
followed by The Netherlands with 20,6%. More than 15% of the dyads came from the
education and research sector, 14,5% from the legal/administration sector, 9,2% from the
banking industry, 8,4% from the hospitality and tourism sector and the remaining 53%
from various other industries.
22
Of the 131 employee participants, 58,8 % were female, their age ranged from 20 years to
59 years (M=29.10, SD=8.36) and 76,3 % had university education. More than a half of the
employee respondents were single (51,1 %) and 42,7 % had a full-time job with a norm of
40 hours a week and more . The average job tenure of the employees was 2.25 years
(SD=2.50) and the average organizational tenure was 3.58 years (SD= 5.11).
With regards to the supervisors characteristics, approximately 56% were men and
their age ranged from 23 years to 60 years (M=37.23, SD=6.97). The majority were married
(72,5 %) and 91.6% had a university education. The average tenure with the company was
13,94 years, and average tenure in the supervision position was 8,29 years. On average, the
supervisors managed the employees for around 4 years (SD=3.69). More than 34 % of the
supervisors interacted with their subordinates at least once every day.
3.2 Measurements
Perceptions of HPHR practices. In order to measure perceptions of HPHR practices, a scale
with 27 items developed by Sun et al. (2007) was used. Participants were asked to rate
each item on a Likert scale from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. The scale
covered questions about the eight most important areas of HR practices pertaining to
selectivity in staffing procedures, training, employment security, clear job description,
results-oriented appraisal, incentive reward, internal mobility and participation. Out of the
27 items, three were contraindicative. Sample items were Formal training programs are
offered to employees in order to increase their promotability in this organization,
Employees are provided the opportunity to suggest improvements in the way things are
done and Employees have few opportunities for upward mobility. All the items can be
found in the Appendix. Cronbachs alpha for this scale was .92.
Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction was gauged using a 3-item scale developed by Cammann
(1979). Responses were given on a scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (5)
strongly agree. Sample items included All in all, I am satisfied with my job and In general,
I dont like my job. The reliability of the scale was .74.
23
25
SD
1.60
0.49
3.48
0.59
.25**
[.92]
3.85
0.67
-.14
.42**
[.74]
3.25
0.60
.01
.44**
.50**
[.71]
2.99
0.52
-.03
-.07
-.07
-.04
[.55]
3.08
0.54
.11
.30**
.28**
.49**
.13
[.63]
3.61
0.83
.08
.48**
.44**
.48**
-.01
.38**
[.80]
3.83
0.71
-.39**
.17*
.42**
.34**
-.17*
.22*
.27**
[.90]
N=131
Cronbachs alphas are reported on the diagonal.
Correlations are significant at *p < .05 and **p < .01 (two-tailed).
26
Survey language
Affective
Continuance
Normative
Commitment
Commitment
Commitment
Step 1
Step 2
Step 1
Step 2
Step 1
Step 2
Step 1
Step 2
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
-.14
-26 ***
.01
-.10
-.03
-.02
.11
.04
HPHR practices
.48***
.47***
-.06
.29***
R2
.02
.24
.00
.20
.001
.006
.01
.09
Adjusted R2
.01
.23
-.007
.19
-.006
-.01
.006
.07
R2
.02
.22
.00
.20
.001
.004
.01
.08
2.65
37.55***
.03
33.58***
.19
.51
1.72
11.23***
Note.
procedures are considered preferable over normal procedures as the Sobel test, because
they do not assume that the distribution of the indirect effects is normal and therefore
provide stronger protection against type II error (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). The regression
results for testing mediation are reported in Table 3.
Hypothesis 3, H4a, H4b and H4c proposed that job satisfaction, affective
commitment, continuance commitment and normative commitment would mediate the
relationship between perceived HR practices and in-role performance. Results in the fourth
column of Table 3 show that, after controlling for survey language (B = - .68, se = .11, p <
.01), HR practices were positively and significantly related to job satisfaction (B = .55, p <
01), affective commitment (B = .47, p < .01) and normative commitment (B = .26, p < .01)
and negatively and not significantly related to continuance commitment (B = -.05, ns).
These findings are in line with the results obtained by performing hierarchical regressions
for H1, H2a, H2b and H2c, which tested the same relationships.
Results in the fifth column show that job satisfaction (B = .32, p < 01), affective
commitment (B = .33, p < 01), continuance commitment (B = .23, p < .05) and normative
commitment (B = .27, p < 01) significantly related to employees in-role performance.
Moreover, the results in the sixth column demonstrate that the total effect of HR practices
is positively and significantly related to in-role performance. However, the seventh column
of Table 3 shows that when separately controlling for job satisfaction, affective
commitment, continuance commitment the effects of HR practices on in-role performance
dropped and became non-significant., whereas when controlling for normative
commitment, the effects of HR practices on in-role performance dropped, but still remained
significant. The effect size of perceived HPHR practices reduced, both for job satisfaction
(from B = .35, p < .01 to B = 17, ns), affective commitment (from B = .35 p < .01 to B = .19,
ns) and normative commitment (from B = .35, p < .01 to B= .28, p < .01), and bootstrap
procedures showed that the mediation effect was significant. Taken together, the results
presented above show that all four Baron & Kenny (1986) conditions for mediation were
not supported for H4b, fully supported for H3, H4a and partially supported for H4c.
To further assess the significance of the mediation, bootstrap procedures were used.
The significance of the indirect effect using bootstrapping is established by determining
28
whether zero is contained within the 95% confidence interval (thus indicating the lack of
significance). The results presented in the last two columns of Table 3 were based on 5000
bootstrapped samples using bias-corrected and accelerated 95% confidence intervals
(Preacher & Hayes, 2004) and showed that the indirect effect of job satisfaction, affective
commitment and normative commitment is indeed significantly different from zero at p <
.05 (two tailed). Thus, taken separately, job satisfaction, affective commitment fully
mediate and normative commitment partially mediates the relationship between HR
practices and employees in-role performance providing evidence for H3, H4a and partial
evidence for H4c.
IV
HRP
Note.
Effect
Total
IV on
M on
effect IV
DV
on DV
.55**
.32**
.35**
AC
.47**
CC
NC
JS
DV
IRP
Direct
effect
IV on DV
BCa 95% CI
Indirect
Effect
SE
(5000 bootstraps)
Lower
Upper
.17(ns)
.17**
.05
.05
.32
.33**
.19 (ns)
.15**
.06
.06
.27
-.05
-.23*
.34**
.01
.02
-.02
.07
.26**
.27**
.28**
.07
.03
.01
.16
N=131
IV = Independent Variable, M = Mediating Variable, DV = Dependent Variable, SE = Standard Error,
HRP = HPHR Practices, JS = Job Satisfaction, AC = Affective Commitment, CC = Continuance Commitment,
NC = Normative Commitment, IRP = In-role performance, BCa = bias corrected and accelerated
**p<.01
29
SE
HRP
.28
.27
1.04
.30
PO fit
.13
.26
.51
.60
.20**
.07
.41
.03
HRP
-.09
.75
-.39
.69
PO fit
-.15
.23
-.65
.51
PO fit x HRP
.12
.06
1.78
.07
HRP
-.27
.25
-1.07
.28
PO fit
-.18
.24
-.74
.45
PO fit x HRP
.06
.07
.85
.39
HRP
-.45
.23
-1.93
.05
PO fit
-.37
.22
-1.65
.09
PO fit x HRP
.17**
.06
2.66
.00
JS
PO fit x HRP
AC
CC
NC
SE
JS
.27**
.09
2.94
.00
HRP
-.42
.28
-1.49
.13
PO fit
-.41
.26
1.52
-.12
PO fit x HRP
.16*
.07
2.06
.04
AC
.24**
.10
2.37
.01
HRP
-.31
.28
-1.12
.26
PO fit
-.33
.27
-1.23
.21
PO fit x HRP
.14
.08
1.74
.08
-.26**
.10
-2.59
.01
HRP
-.41
.28
-1.45
.14
PO fit
-.42
.27
-1.55
.12
PO fit x HRP
.18
.08
2.34
.08
NC
.17
.11
1.55
.12
HRP
-.26
.29
-.91
. 36
PO fit
-.31
.27
-1.12
. 26
PO fit x HRP
.14
.08
-1.12
. 26
CC
Note. SE = Standard Error, HRP = HPHR Practices, JS = Job Satisfaction, AC = Affective Commitment, CC =
Continuance Commitment, NC = Normative Commitment; **p<.05
31
Only the interaction between PO fit and HPHR practices (B = .20, p < .05) was statistically
significant in predicting job satisfaction. This implies that the indirect effect of HPHR
practices on in-role performance through job satisfaction is moderated by PO fit. The sign
of the interaction is consistent with the interpretation that the indirect effect is larger for
higher levels of PO fit, thus supporting the assumption of moderated mediation.
To further examine the moderated mediation relationship which required the
magnitude of the conditional indirect effect of HPHR practices via job satisfaction to be
different for low and high levels of PO fit, bootstrap procedures were used. The low and
high levels of PO fit were operationalized as one standard deviation above (+1 SD) and
below (-1 SD) the mean score of the variable as recommended by Preacher et al. (2007).
Estimates and confidence intervals of the conditional indirect effects for HR practices
across low and high levels of PO fit are covered in Table 5.
As hypothesized, bootstrapping analyses indicated that job satisfaction mediated
the effect of HPHR practices on in-role performance at low and high levels of PO fit
(confidence intervals do not contain 0 at = .05), the strength of the conditional effect
increasing along with levels of PO fit (B = .10 at -1 SD, B = .11 at +1 SD). Hence, H5 was
confirmed.
32
Table 5. Bootstrap results for testing the significance of conditional indirect effect
Bootstrap results
BCa 95% CI
(5000 bootstraps)
Mediator
Moderator
Level
JS
PO fit
Low
AC
CC
NC
Note.
PO fit
PO fit
PO fit
Conditional
Lower
Upper
.10**
.01
.24
High
.11**
.01
.27
Low
.06
.00
.16
High
.11
.01
.23
Low
.02
-.01
.10
High
-.00
.-08
.07
Low
.00
-.02
.06
High
.03
.00
.16
indirect effect
33
5. Discussion
The purpose of the study was to examine the relationship between employees perceptions
of HPHR practices and important employees attitudes and behavioral outcomes and the
role of PO fit in this relationship, as part of the chain linking HRM to organizational
performance. More specifically, based on social exchange theory and PO fit theory, this
paper proposed and tested a moderated mediation model in which job satisfaction and the
three dimensions of organizational commitment mediate the relationship between HPHR
practices and in-role performance and where PO fit moderates the strength of the
proposed mediation. As discussed earlier, few studies in the HRM organizational
performance literature have approached the connection between HPHR practices and
employees attitudes and behaviors (e.g. Kehoe & Wright, 2010) and most of them have
disregarded the views of employees as related to these outcomes, using managerial reports
of HPHR practices instead. As there are solid reasons why managerial reports of HPHR
practices might not have the expected influence on employee outcomes (Bowen & Ostroff,
2004; Nishii & Wright, 2008), this study brings its contribution in the HRM literature by
investigating the effects of employees perceptions of HPHR practices on job satisfaction,
organizational commitment and in-role behavior. Furthermore, by analyzing the
moderating role of PO fit on work outcomes, it addresses recent calls in the literature for an
examination of this nature.
In general, the findings of the study indicate that perceived HPHR practices
positively relate to job satisfaction, affective commitment and normative commitment.
Moreover, job satisfaction and affective commitment fully mediate and normative
commitment only partially mediates the perceived HPHR practices - in-role performance
relationship. Contrary to the predictions, continuance commitment neither mediates the
relationship the HPHR practices-in-role performance relationship, nor is significantly
related to HPHR practices. In addition, PO fit only moderates the mediated relationship of
HPHR practices and in-role performance via job satisfaction, the results providing no
support for the moderated mediation hypothesis of PO fit on the link between perceived
HPHR practices, affective commitment, normative commitment and in-role performance.
34
The positive association between employees perception of HPHR practices and job
satisfaction is in line with the results obtained by previous researchers (Appelbaum et al.,
2000). This result suggests that employees experience greater job satisfaction when they
perceive HHR practices as more effective. Consequently, the findings support the idea that
high-performance work systems that emphasize the opportunity to participate in decisionmaking employ incentive schemes and opportunities for training and provide them with
opportunities for upward mobility play an important role in the development of job
satisfaction.
Furthermore, the results of this study reveal that perceived HPHR practices
positively related to affective commitment and normative commitment. This is consisted
with the arguments provided for these hypotheses and with previous findings ( Meyer &
Smith, 2000; Gould-Williams, 2003) showing that employees develop affective commitment
toward their organizations when they perceive HPHR practices as supportive and meant to
establish a social exchange relationship with them (Appelbaum et al., 2000; Meyer & Smith,
2000). In particular, organizations that put their efforts into improving the skills of
employees, providing promotion opportunities and encouraging employees decisionmaking participation are more likely to cultivate feelings of attachment among its
employees. Such practices are a proof of care and interest toward the employees, who in
turn feel more appreciated and important. What is more, with regards to the positive effect
of HPHR practices on the normative commitment, it can be concluded that employees
experience feelings of obligation in relation to their organization which as argued before
derive from the idea that the organizations has fulfilled its obligation by offering secure
employment, training and careers opportunities. Hence, it can be stated that all the factors
that trigger affective commitment are also responsible for normative commitment, but to a
lesser extent.
Contrary to the predictions, perceived HPHR practices did not significantly relate to
continuance commitment. This result stands as an outlier compared to the results of other
studies who found a positive relationship between HPHR practices and continuance
commitment (e.g. Allen & Meyer, 2000). One possible explanation for this result might be
that employees do not stay in the organization because of the costs involved by their leave
35
(e.g. achievements, retirement plans, expertise), but because they probably do not have
other alternatives. Hence, HPHR practices seem to have no influence whatsoever on
employees decision to continue the employment relationship and for this reason,
continuance commitment could rather be considered a negative form of commitment.
Overall, these findings add to the existent studies on HPHR practices and employee
attitudes by identifying HPHR practices as antecedents of job satisfaction, affective
commitment and normative commitment.
Job satisfaction and affective commitment were found as full mediators and
normative commitment as a partial mediator in the HPHR practices in-role performance
relationship. Consistent with the social exchange theory (Blau, 1986), these findings point
out the fact that employees perceptions of HPHR practices affect employees in-role
behavior through attitudinal outcomes job satisfaction and affective commitment to a
greater extent and normative commitment just to a limited extent. It is thus demonstrated
that employees who manifest job satisfaction and affective commitment as a result of the
effectiveness of HPHR practices are inclined to work harder and have better performance
results. The partial mediation effect of normative commitment supports on the one hand
the fact that this dimension of commitment is a predictor of in-role performance, but also
that perceptions of HPHR practices are a predictor of in-role performance. This implies that
although normative commitment explains a part of the influence of HPHR practices on inrole performance, it does not grasp the full effect. An explanation for that would be that for
instance, employment security practices might affect in-role performance without doing so
via normative commitment. Furthermore, practices such as incentive rewards might not
increase the normative commitment, but they might encourage people to perform better.
Another explanation would be that there are some other variable that can explain the
remaining portion of influence of HPHR practices on in-role performance. Since it has
already been proven that job satisfaction and affective commitment act as mediators,
maybe other explanation outside the social exchange theory could provide the grounds for
the part of influence of HPHR practices and in-role performance. Future research might
examine if HPHR practices affect in-role performance through some other mechanisms
such as trust in management or leadership behavior.
36
independent of the match employees perceive to have with their organization, if the HR
practices send the appropriate messages they reciprocate anyway with affective
commitment and obligation toward their employer that further translates into
performance results.
One might show interest in the reason why the moderated mediation occurs for job
satisfaction but not for organizational commitment. One reason might be that job
satisfaction, in comparison to commitment, has an intrinsic component (Herzberg,
Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959), which might resonate better with the intrinsic nature of
values that organization and employees have in common. Nevertheless, future research
might find different results in a different research context.
From a theoretical perspective, the current study contributes to the HRM literature
by focusing on employees perception of HPHR practices as a predictor of desired employee
outcomes such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment. In line with social
exchange theory, the findings demonstrate that perceptions of HPHR practices affect
employees performance behavior through their effect on attitudinal outcomes job
satisfaction and the three dimensions of commitment. Moreover, it emphasizes the
important role of attitudes in eliciting desired employee behaviors as a consequence of the
influence of appropriate combination of HR practices. Furthermore, it broadens the HRM
literature by integrating the social exchange and PO fit theory, proposing PO fit as a
construct that might help gain a better understanding of the effects of perceived HPHR
practices on employees outcomes.
From a practical point of view, the findings of this paper have several managerial
implications. In developing systems of HPHR practices, organizations need to take into
consideration the responses of workers if they want to achieve good performance results.
Moreover, these practices need to be correctly implemented so that the message that the
organization is trying to send through them is the same with what employees perceive
about the HR practices. Also, by focusing on employees perceptions rather than managerial
perceptions of HR practices, organizations could identify the areas that are perceived by
managers as functioning, but not perceived as so by the employees. In addition, it provides
valuable information for HR selection and employment practices. Organizations might want
38
to focus on hiring people based on PO fit, since findings reveal that it has an important role
in predicting positive work attitudes and behaviors.
39
macro for moderated mediation does not. Preacher & Hayes are currently working on a
moderated mediation macro that allows the insertion of multiple mediators, but it is not
yet released for the public.
Finally, this paper only focused on PO fit as a potential moderator in the mediated
relationship between HPHR practices and in-role performance. Future research may
examine the effects of other moderators that could possible influence the above mentioned
relationship. Results should be then compared in order to provide HR practitioners and
managers with a better perspective on what should be done to better manage their
relationship with the employees that will eventually lead to more positive results.
7. Conclusion
In conclusion, the current research brought significant contribution to the HRM and PO fit
literature by providing evidence that perceptions of HPHR practices have a very important
role in fostering employee attitudes and behaviors. Furthermore, the findings uncover the
importance of employees work attitudes (satisfaction and commitment) in bridging HR
practices with individual performance. Moreover, it provided some useful insight for HR
practitioners on how to create the HR practices system in order to trigger the right
employee attitudes and behaviors that will help the organization prosper and remain
competitive on the market.
41
Appendix
Perceptions of HPHR practices - Questionnaire items
Selective Staffing
42
43
23. Things were better in the days when people stayed with one organization for most of their
careers.
24. I do not think that wanting to be a 'company man' or 'company woman' is sensible
anymore.
45
References
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1973). Attitudinal and normative variables as predictors of specific
behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27(1), 41.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1996). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the
organization: An examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (2000). Construct validation in organizational behavior research: The case
of organizational commitment.
Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P., & Kalleberg, A. (2000). Manufacturing advantage Cornell
University Press Ithaca, NY/London.
Arthur, J. B. (1994). Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance and
turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 670-687.
Arthur, M. B., Khapova, S. N., & Wilderom, C. P. M. (2005). Career success in a boundaryless career
world. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(2), 177-202.
Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. S., & Chen, Z. X. (2002). Trust as a mediator of the relationship between
organizational justice and work outcomes: Test of a social exchange model. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 23(3), 267-285.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986a). The moderatormediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986b). The moderatormediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173.
Bateman, T. S., & Strasser, S. (1984). A longitudinal analysis of the antecedents of organizational
commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 27(1), 95-112.
Bauer, T. K. (2004). High performance workplaces and job satisfaction: evidence from Europe. IZA
Discussion Paper no. 1265.
Becker, T. E., Billings, R. S., Eveleth, D. M., & Gilbert, N. L. (1996). Foci and bases of employee
commitment: Implications for job performance. Academy of Management Journal, , 464-482.
Becker, B. E., Huselid, M. A., Pickus, P. S., & Spratt, M. F. (1997). HR as a source of shareholder value:
Research and recommendations. Human Resource Management, 36(1), 39-47.
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power. Social Life,
Blau, P. M. (1986). Exchange and power in social life Transaction Publishers.
46
47
Combs, J., Liu, Y., Hall, A., & Ketchen, d. (2006). How much do highperformance work practices
matter? A metaanalysis of their effects on organizational performance. Personnel psychology,
59(3), 501-528.
Delaney, J. T., & Godard, J. (2001). An industrial relations perspective on the high-performance
paradigm. Human Resource Management Review, 11(4), 395-429.
Delery, J. E. (1998). Issues of fit in strategic human resource management: Implications for
research. Human Resource Management Review,
Delery, J. E., & Shaw, J. D. (2001). The strategic management of people in work organizations:
Review, synthesis, and extension.
Dyer, L., & Reeves, T. (1995). Human resource strategies and firm performance: What do we know
and where do we need to go? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 6(3),
656-670.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College
Publishers.
Edgar, F., & Geare, A. (2005). HRM practice and employee attitudes: Different measuresdifferent
results. Personnel Review, 34(5), 534-549.
Endler, N. S., & Magnusson, D. E. (1976). Interactional psychology and personality.
Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T. N. (2005). Enhancing career benefits of employee proactive personality:
The role of fit with jobs and organizations. Personnel Psychology, 58(4), 859-891.
Ferris, G. R., Hochwater, W. A., Buckley, M. R., Harrell-Cook, G., & Frink, D. D. (1999). Human
resources management: Some new directions. Journal of Management, 25(3), 385-415.
Gaertner, K. N., & Nollen, S. D. (1989). Career experiences, perceptions of employment practices,
and psychological commitment to the organization. Human Relations, 42(11), 975.
Gong, Y., Law, K. S., Chang, S., & Xin, K. R. (2009). Human resources management and firm
performance: The differential role of managerial affective and continuance commitment.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 263.
Gould-Williams, J. (2003). The importance of HR practices and workplace trust in achieving
superior performance: A study of public-sector organizations. International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 14(1), 28-54.
Green, F. (2006). Demanding work: The paradox of job quality in the affluent economy Princeton Univ
Pr.
Guest, D. E. (1997). Human resource management and performance: A review and research agenda.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8(3), 263-276.
48
Guest, D. E. (2001). Human resource management: When research confronts theory. International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(7), 1092-1106.
Guest, D. (2002a). Human resource management, corporate performance and employee wellbeing:
Building the worker into HRM. Journal of Industrial Relations, 44(3), 335.
Guest, D. (2002b). Human resource management, corporate performance and employee wellbeing:
Building the worker into HRM. Journal of Industrial Relations, 44(3), 335.
Guthrie, J. P. (2001). High-involvement work practices, turnover, and productivity: Evidence from
new zealand. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), 180-190.
Hackett, R. D., Bycio, P., & Hausdorf, P. A. (1994). Further assessments of meyer and allen's (1991)
three-component model of organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(1),
15.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee
satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87(2), 268.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B.B.(1959). the motivation to work.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., Dorfman, P. W., Javidan, M., Dickson, M., & Gupta, V.
(1999). Cultural influences on leadership and organizations: Project GLOBE. Advances in Global
Leadership, 1, 171-233.
Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover,
productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, , 635-672.
Iaffaldano, M. T., & Muchinsky, P. M. (1985). Job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 97(2), 251.
Iverson, R. D., & Currivan, D. B. (2003). Union participation, job satisfaction, and employee
turnover: An EventHistory analysis of the ExitVoice hypothesis. Industrial Relations: A Journal
of Economy and Society, 42(1), 101-105.
James, L. R., & Brett, J. M. (1984). Mediators, moderators, and tests for mediation. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 69(2), 307.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfactionjob performance
relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127(3), 376.
Judge, T. A., & Cable, D. M. (1997). Applicant personality, organizational culture, and organization
attraction. Personnel Psychology, 50(2), 359-394.
Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. (1992). The elusive criterion of fit in human resources staffing decisions.
Human Resource Planning, 15(4)
49
Judge, T. A., Cable, D. M., Boudreau, J. W., & Bretz jr, r.,d. (1995). An empirical investigation of the
predictors of executive career success. Personnel psychology, 48(3), 485-519.
Kane, B., Crawford, J., & Grant, D. (1999). Barriers to effective HRM. International Journal of
Manpower, 20(8), 494-516.
Kehoe, R. R., & Wright, P. M. (2010). The impact of high performance human resource practices on
employees' attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Management,
Konovsky, M. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1991). Perceived fairness of employee drug testing as a
predictor of employee attitudes and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(5), 698.
Konovsky, M. 2000. Understanding procedural justice and its impact on business organizations.
Journal of Management, 26: 489-511.
Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations,
measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49(1), 149.
KristofBrown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, e. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals'fit at
work: a metaanalysis of personjob, personorganization, persongroup, and person
supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281-342.
Legge, K. (1995). HRM: Rhetoric, reality and hidden agendas. Human Resource Management: A
Critical Text, Routledge, London, , 33-59.
Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality: Selected papers (DK adams & KE zener, trans.).
New York & London: McGraw-Hill Book Company.(Original Work Published in 1935),
Liao, H., Toya, K., Lepak, D. P., & Hong, Y. (2009). Do they see eye to eye? management and employee
perspectives of high-performance work systems and influence processes on service quality.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 371.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. Handbook of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Chicago: Rand McNally, , 1319-1328.
Locke, E. A., & Henne, D. (1986). Work motivation theories. International Review of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, 1, 1-35.
Lofquist, L. H., & Dawis, R. V. (1969). Adjustment to work Appleton-Century-Crofts Nueva York.
MacDuffie, J. P. (1995). Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance: Organizational
logic and flexible production systems in the world auto industry. Industrial & Labor Relations
Review, 48(2), 197-221.
Macky, K., & Boxall, P. (2007). The relationship between high-performance work practices and
employee attitudes: An investigation of additive and interaction effects. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(4), 537-567.
50
Marchington, M., & Wilkinson, A. (2005). Human resource management at work: People management
and development CIPD Publishing.
Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and
consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 171.
Mayer, R. C., & Schoorman, F. D. (1992). Predicting participation and production outcomes through
a two-dimensional model of organizational commitment. Academy of Management Journal,
35(3), 671-684.
Meglino, B. M., Ravlin, E. C., & Adkins, C. L. (1989). A work values approach to corporate culture: A
field test of the value congruence process and its relationship to individual outcomes. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 74(3), 424.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application
Sage publications, inc.
Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations:
Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology,
78(4), 538.
Meyer, J. P., Paunonen, S. V., Gellatly, I. R., Goffin, R. D., & Jackson, D. N. (1989). Organizational
commitment and job performance: It's the nature of the commitment that counts. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 74(1), 152.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational
commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61-89.
Meyer, J. P., & Smith, C. A. (2000). HRM practices and organizational commitment: Test of a
mediation model. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences
De l'Administration, 17(4), 319-331.
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Dubin, R. (1974). Unit performance, situational factors, and employee
attitudes in spatially separated work units* 1. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 12(2), 231-248.
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-organization linkages: The psychology
of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover Academic Press New York.
Naud, P., Desai, J., & Murphy, J. (2003). Identifying the determinants of internal marketing
orientation. European Journal of Marketing, 37(9), 1205-1220.
Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., McKee, D. O., & McMurrian, R. (1997). An investigation into the
antecedents of organizational citizenship behaviors in a personal selling context. The Journal of
Marketing, 61(3), 85-98.
51
Nishii, L. H., Lepak, D. P., & Schneider, B. (2008). Employee attributions of the why of HR practices:
Their effects on employee attitudes and behaviors, and customer satisfaction. Personnel
Psychology, 61(3), 503-545.
Nishii, L. H., & Wright, P. M. (2008). Variability within organizations: Implications for strategic
human resource management. The People make the Place: Dynamic Linkages between
Individuals and Organizations, New York: Taylor and Francis Group,
Olson, J. M., & Zanna, M. P. (1993). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology,
44(1), 117-154.
O'Reilly III, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture: A profile
comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal,
34(3), 487-516.
Organ, D. W. (1988). A restatement of the satisfaction-performance hypothesis. Journal of
Management, 14(4), 547-557.
Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A metaanalttic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of
organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel psychology, 48(4), 775-802.
Parker, M. (1998). Ethics and organizations Sage Publications Ltd.
Petty, M., McGee, G. W., & Cavender, J. W. (1984). A meta-analysis of the relationships between
individual job satisfaction and individual performance. Academy of Management Review, , 712721.
Piasentin, K. A., & Chapman, D. S. (2006). Subjective person-organization fit: Bridging the gap
between conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69(2), 202-221.
Porter, L. W., Lawler, E. E., & Hackman, J. R. (1975). Behavior in organizations.
Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organizational commitment, job
satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(5),
603-609.
Posner, B. Z., Kouzes, J. M., & Schmidt, W. H. (1985). Shared values make a difference: An empirical
test of corporate culture. Human Resource Management, 24(3), 293-309.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in
simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, 36(4), 717-731.
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses:
Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), 185-227.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3),
879.
52
Purcell, J. (2003). Understanding the people and performance link: Unlocking the black box CIPD
Publishing.
Purcell, J., & Hutchinson, S. (2007). Frontline managers as agents in the HRMperformance causal
chain: Theory, analysis and evidence. Human Resource Management Journal, 17(1), 3-20.
Ramsay, H., Scholarios, D., & Harley, B. (2000). Employees and high-performance work systems:
Testing inside the black box. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 38(4), 501-531.
Randall, D. M. (1990). The consequences of organizational commitment: Methodological
investigation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11(5), 361-378.
Randall, M. L., Cropanzano, R., Bormann, C. A., & Birjulin, A. (1999). Organizational politics and
organizational support as predictors of work attitudes, job performance, and organizational
citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(2), 159-174.
Reichers, A. E. (1985). A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment. Academy of
Management Review, 10(3), 465-476.
Riketta, M. (2002). Attitudinal organizational commitment and job performance: A metaanalysis.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(3), 257-266.
Rioux, S. M., & Penner, L. A. (2001). The causes of organizational citizenship behavior: A
motivational analysis* 1. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1306-1314.
Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. (1995). Psychological contracts and OCB: The effect of unfulfilled
obligations on civic virtue behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16(3), 289-298.
Rode, J. C. (2004). Job satisfaction and life satisfaction revisited: A longitudinal test of an integrated
model. Human Relations, 57(9), 1205.
Sanders, K., Dorenbosch, L., & De Reuver, R. (2008). The impact of individual and shared employee
perceptions of HRM on affective commitment: Considering climate strength. Personnel Review,
37(4), 412-425.
Shore, L. M., & Tetrick, L. E. (1991). A construct validity study of the survey of perceived
organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(5), 637.
Shore, L. M., & Wayne, S. J. (1993). Commitment and employee behavior: Comparison of affective
commitment and continuance commitment with perceived organizational support. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 78, 774-774.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation
models. Sociological Methodology, 13(1982), 290-312.
Somers, M. J., & Birnbaum, D. (1998). Workrelated commitment and job performance: It's also the
nature of the performance that counts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(6), 621-634.
53
54
Wright, P. M., Gardner, T. M., Moynihan, L. M., & Allen, M. R. (2005). The relationship between HR
practices and firm performance: Examining causal order. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 409-446.
55