A Comparative Study of the Effects of Best Practice HRM on Worker Outcomes in Malaysia and England Local Government.

Paper presented to Asia-Pacific Researchers in Organisation Studies, APROS12 New Delhi, India December 9-12, 2007

Dr Julian Gould-Williams & Dr Rosmah Mohamed

Cardiff University Cardiff Business School Colum Drive CARDIFF. UK CF10 3EU Email: gouldwilliams@cf.ac.uk

ABSTRACT This paper presents the findings of a cross-cultural comparison of the effects of Best Practice HRM using employees from a matched sample of local government service departments in England and Malaysia (England n= 569, Malaysian n= 453). The paper tests the universal best practice thesis, and also assesses the perceived level of up-take of HR practices in the two samples. The research also considered employees perceptions of internal climate, trust and worker responses, such as job satisfaction, motivation, stress and quit intentions. The findings reveal that the Malaysian workers perceived the up-take of HR practices to be higher in comparison to their England counterparts. A less consistent pattern emerged with regards to perceptions of climate. OLS regression revealed that consistent with the universal thesis, a bundle of HR practices significantly predicted employee outcomes in the hypothesised direction in both samples. Therefore, these findings provide strong support for the universal thesis.
KEYWORDS UNIVERSAL THESIS, BEST PRACTICE HRM, MALAYSIA, ENGLAND, LOCAL GOVERNMENT, EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES

A Comparative Study of the Effects of Best Practice HRM on Worker Outcomes in Malaysia and England Local Government. Introduction Attempts to understand the links between HRM and performance continue to dominate the HRM literature. Early work in this area reported evidence of a positive association between HRM and firm productivity, profitability and sales. A corollary of these findings is the assertion that the effects of high performance management practices are real, economically significant and general and thus should be adopted by [all] organizations (Pfeffer, 1998: 34). In other words it is claimed that the performance effects of best practice HRM are universal (Delery and Doty, 1996; Huselid, 1995; Pfeffer, 1994). Much of this work is based on empirical evidence emerging from the US (Arthur, 1994; Huselid, 1995; MacDuffie, 1995) and UK (Patterson et al., 1997; Guest et al., 2000; 2003; West et al, 2002). Early research in this area focused on organization-specific performance outcomes, but now there is growing awareness of the need to investigate the processes through which HRM affects organisational performance, often referred to as the black box. For instance, Boselie et al., (2005: 77) note: black box studies conceptualise employees perceptions and experience as the primary mediating variable, and the signalling effects of HRM are understood to forge a psychological contract between the employer and employees that shapes these perceptions and experience. The assumption is that best practice HRM affects organisational performance as workers change their attitudes and behaviours in response to their experience of HR practice. So far however there is a dearth of research evidence based on employee responses to HR practice, with Macky and Boxall (2007: 539) stating this is a neglected area of research (see also Grant and Shields, 2002; Guest, 1999; 2002; Ramsay et al., 2000). Further, to our understanding, few commentators have attempted to test the universal model of HRM across national contexts (Budhwar and Debrah, 2001; Faulkner et al., 2002). For instance, there appears to be no direct international comparative studies in which the effects of HR practice on individual employee outcomes has been empirically tested (see for instance Wang et al., 2007). The only study to have considered cross-country adoption of best practice HRM is that reported by Galang (2004) and Ichniowski and Shaw (1999), but even in these instances, data were collected at the organizational not individual level, thus employee responses remain unexplored. As such there is a pressing need to undertake international, cross-cultural comparative work on the effects of best practice HRM on employee

outcomes. In an attempt to provide such evidence, this paper presents the empirical findings of a matched comparative study of worker responses in a public sector setting namely England and Malaysia local government organisations. The universal best practice model The universal or best practice model of HRM argues that it is possible to prescribe one best way of managing employees. However, so far there is a lack of a theory about HRM, a theory about performance and a theory about how they are linked (Guest, 1997: 263). Nevertheless, Pfeffer (1994) advocates a list of 16 HR practices for gaining competitive advantage through people, a list which he subsequently reduces to a set of seven core practices (Pfeffer, 1998). Other commentators offer an eclectic range of HR practices, with Boxall and Purcell (2003: 62) stating: it is difficult to see the underpinning logic in such a long list of practices. Instead it is argued that a more parsimonious approach needs to be adopted in describing best practice models of HRM. To this end, Youndt et al., (1996: 839) observe that most [best practice models] ..focus on enhancing the skill base of employees through HR activities such as selective staffing, comprehensive training [further they] tend to promote empowerment, participative problem-solving, and teamwork . This observation is consistent with a recent review undertaken by Boselie et al., (2005) in which they identified the four most reported practices as: training and development, contingent pay, performance management (which included conducting appraisals) and careful recruitment and selection processes. If consensus could be achieved over the types of HR practices that should be regarded as best practice, researchers then need to consider a further range of issues. It is possible for an organisation to view each HR practice as discrete and make no attempt to link practices together. This approach contrasts from those who would endeavour to bundle mutually reinforcing HR practices in a coherent and integrated manner (Huselid, 1995; Ichniowski et al., 1997; Boselie et al., 2005). It is now generally accepted that implementing bundles of HR practices is more effective than introducing HR practices individually (Guest et al., 2004). However, even here questions are raised as to which HR practices should be included in the bundle (Delery, 1998). For example, Boselie et al., (2005: 73) states that, No accepted theory exists that might classify different practices into obligatory and optional, hygiene practices and motivators. This, they argue, has resulted in HRM ..consist[ing] of whatever researchers wish or, perhaps, what their samples and data sets dictate (Boselie et al., 2005: 74). Also, a further question arises relating to the nature of the relationships between the practices within each bundle (Lepak and Snell, 2002). Delery (1998) describes the potential relationships as: i) additive (where each HR practice has its own, unique effect on
4

performance outcomes); ii) interactive (the effect of each practice depends on the up-take of other practices within the bundle); and iii) synergistic (the combined effect of the bundle is greater than the sum of the individual HR practices). More recent commentaries are also highlighting the importance of differentiating between HR policy and practice. The former outlines the organisations intentions whereas the latter is based on observable, actual activities as experienced by workers (Wright and Boswell, 2002; Van den Berg et al., 1999). Kinnie et al, (2005: 10) argue that researchers should always endeavour to differentiate between ..the intended or espoused HR policies and the actual enactment of these policies, usually by line managers and how they are experienced by employees. Employee attitudes are influenced not so much by the way these policies are intended to operate as by the way they are actually implemented by line managers on a day-to-day basis (italics added). It is thought that addressing this issue will avoid problems associated with researchers relying on organisational rhetoric rather than reality (Legge, 2005). Thus, where possible, researchers should endeavour to capture HR practice rather than policy. This is regarded as being especially important when investigating the effects of HR practice on employee outcomes (c.f. Truss, 2001; Boselie et al., 2005; Gould-Williams, 2003; 2007). Organisational Climate & Trust In understanding the effects of HR practice on individual outcomes, commentators have begun to recognise the importance of organisational climate as a key explanatory variable (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004). Climate is regarded as the collective attitude of individual workers towards their organisation (Burton et al., 2004). It has been defined as the relatively enduring quality of the internal environment of an organization that a) is experienced by its members, b) influences their behaviour, and c) can be described in terms of the values of a particular set of characteristics (or attitudes) of the organization (Tagiuri and Litwin, 1968: 27). There is growing consensus that such organisational characteristics include support, According to Poole (1985: 84) climate is the recognition, fairness, morale, rewards equity and leader credibility (McMurray, 2003; Burton et al., 2004; Moran and Volkwein, 1992). empiricist[s] substitute for the richer term culture, in that organisational climate is often viewed as a quantifiable concept whereas culture is more qualitative and less tangible (Turnipseed, 1988). Also, climate is concerned with those aspects of the social environment that are consciously perceived by organizational members (Denison, 1996: 624). Of course, the question arises as to whose view of organisational climate should be considered. A
5

significant body of research has obtained the views of managers alone, reasoning that managers have the greatest influence over work processes and as such, their views should have the most predictive effect on future firm performance (Gordon and DiTomaso, 1992). Thus, the views of non-managerial workers have been excluded from many notable studies (Peters and Waterman, 1982; Denison, 2001; Weber, 1996). However, given that managers perceptions of organisational climate tends to be more positive than those of non-managers, we argue that it is important to consider the views of frontline workers along with those of managers in analysing the effects of climate on individual outcomes (Patterson et al., 2004; Payne and Mansfield, 1973). Further, employee outcomes have also been found to be affected by levels of trust between employees and management, to the extent that trust influences employees responses to HR practices (Gould-Williams, 2003; Whitener, 2001; Appelbaum et al., 2000iii). According to Macky and Boxall (2007: 541): Trust in management involves a reification a personalization of a collective identity (management) based on an employees observations of the behaviour of individual managers. trust in management, or its lack, can be seen as developing from peoples experiences over time regarding how they have been treated or have seen others treated by managers. Employee outcomes The common underlying assumption of HR models is that HR practices affect organisational performance through employee responses, namely changes in their work-related attitudes and behaviours (Macky and Boxall, 2007; Guest, 1999; Ramsay et al., 2000; Wright et al., 1994; Wright and Nishii, 2004). et al., 2003). Work-related attitudes and behaviours will determine to a large extent, whether employees use their skills and abilities to the benefit of the organisation (Park Important employee outcomes include job satisfaction, commitment, motivation and organisational citizenship behaviour, each of which are regarded as positive outcomes in terms of achieving improved organisational performance (Spector, 1997; Park et al., 2003; Guest, 1999; Hoque, 1999). For instance, job satisfaction has been linked with enhanced on-the-job performance (Judge et al., 2001; Spector, 1997), customer satisfaction (Rogg et al., 2001) and organisational performance (Harter et al., 2002; Meyer et al., 2001). Employee motivation has been found to lead to reduced labour turnover and increased sales (Huselid, 1995). Kinnie et al., (2005:11) argue that discretionary behaviour both on and off the job is the critical factor in linking employee responses to performance. Certainly, it appears that researchers tend to include one or more of these employee outcomes as part of their evaluation of the effects of HR practice, on the basis that individual skills and abilities
6

will not on their own add value to an organisation. Rather, it is employees behaviour and attitudes that will ultimately determine the extent to which they are prepared to put their abilities to use within the organisation (Park et al., 2003). In addition, there is now a growing awareness of the need to consider the potential negative effects of HR practices (Godard, 2001), with Ramsay et al (2000) incorporating employee stress and work intensification in their analysis. Comparing the effects of Best Practice HRM across national contexts Commentators continue to debate whether the adoption of HR practice is converging or diverging across national contexts (Budhwar and Sparrow, 2002). Those adopting a contingent or culturalist point-of-view argue that HR practices are diverging due, in part to management styles being cultural solutions to social problems (Crozier, 1964 as quoted in Tayeb 1998: 335). Similarly Budhwar and Sparrow note that national cultures influence the adoption of HR practice as managers basic assumptions and values may: i) render certain HR practices as being of no relevance whatsoever; ii) influence their preferences for specific types of HR policy and the effectiveness of such policies; and iii) be based on unique ways of doing things reflecting the management logic peculiar to a particular country. Alternatively, proponents of the convergence thesis state that the issues faced by managers throughout the world are similar, thus management response and management practice will also be similar, thus endorsing to a large extent the universal argument (Tayeb, 1998). This view is challenged by several commentators. For instance, Foster and Whipp (1995) state that it is nave to assume there is just one best approach for managing people in that, according to their view, management practice should consider cultural and regional differences between countries. Similarly, Budhwar and Sparrow (2002) argue that the universal perspective is flawed as it is based on a very narrow view of human experience, namely an Anglo-Saxon approach to management. According to Tayeb, neither of the above perspectives reflect the reality of management practice: ..what actually managers do, is too complicated to fit any one of the above or similar black and white prescriptions. Some practices can be transferred almost without any change from one country to another. Some must be modified to become workable in another setting. Some are more deeply culture-specific and may not always be transferable. certain aspects of organizations are more likely to be universal, and there are areas which are more culture-specific. The same broad division applies to a large extent in the context of cross-cultural transfer. That is,
7

those aspects of organizations and management practices which involve human interactions with one another, e.g. human resource management, are the areas where transfers are rather problematical, but not necessarily impossible. (1998: 335) On this basis it is difficult to predict whether non-Anglo Saxon countries will have a similar up-take of universal best practice HRM, and even more challenging to predict the effects of HR practice on workers. Empirical evidence would help inform the development of HR theory in this area (compare Guest, 1997). The England and Malaysian contexts Several significant differences can be identified between the national cultures of England and Malaysia. Relative to England, Malaysia shows a high level of collectivism and power distance. The England sample would be typical of the Anglo-Saxon block of countries which emphasises individualism and low power distance (Hofstede, 2001). However, due to the historical links between England and Malaysia, many Malaysian organisational practices, especially in the civil service and government, reflect those used in the UK due to the influence of British policy. For instance, according to Chew (2005), HR practices in However, from our Malaysia are an artefact of both indigenous and Westernised practices dating back to British colonisation in the nineteenth century (see also Hirano, 1991). standpoint, we would argue that the historical links between Malaysia and the UK will have little effect on Malaysian organisations adoption of best practice HRM as HRM didnt emerge in the UK until the late 1980s, early 1990s! Nevertheless Chew (2005) argues that there is now evidence of growing convergence between Malaysian and Anglo-Saxon HR practice and values, with progressive Malaysian firms recognis[ing] the strategic importance of the HR department, evolving from a focus on employee welfare to one that emphasises both human development and optimal productivity (pp89). Also, several important Islamic values emphasise the need for honesty, self-discipline, motivation, teamwork and consensus. As such, if management practice and employee responses are consistent with these values, we would expect the Malaysian workforce to be highly motivated and self-disciplined. In other words, best practice HRM will have a lower predictive effect on employee motivation in the Malaysian sample as compared with the England sample. Also, it is likely that Malaysian managers will consult with workers about changes that effect their daily lives more so than their England counterparts. Research hypotheses and propositions The above review proposes that best practice HRM will positively affect employees attitudes and behaviours. These effects are thought to be universally applicable regardless of
8

national context, industry or occupational type. Even though there is no consensus as to what constitutes best practice HRM, there is some agreement that HR practice should include activities that promote employee development, rewards, teamworking and careful recruitment and selection. Also, it appears that bundles of HR practices are more likely to have a positive effect on employee outcomes than individual practices, with the further observation that such outcomes are influenced more by employee perceptions of practice than HR policy directives. Finally, organisational climate and trust in management have now become On this basis we recognised as key factors influencing the effects of best practice HRM. hypotheses: Hypothesis One: Bundles of best practice HRM will positively affect employee motivation in both the England and Malaysian samples. Hypothesis Two: Bundles of best practice HRM will positively affect employee job satisfaction in both the England and Malaysian samples. Hypothesis Three: Bundles of best practice HRM will positively affect employees organisational citizenship behaviour in both the England and Malaysian samples. Hypothesis Four: Bundles of best practice HRM will negatively affect job-related stress in both the England and Malaysian samples. Hypothesis Five: Bundles of best practice HRM will negatively affect employee intention to quit in both the England and Malaysian samples. Due to the conflicting views relating to the development of HRM in Malaysia, it is difficult to predict the extent to which HR practice has been embraced by local government organisations. Thus, whether or not HR practice converges or diverges between England and Malaysia will be informed by empirical evidence. Methods The England data were based on the 2003 Local Government Workplace Survey (LGWS). The aim of the survey was to evaluate the effects of performance initiatives on staff perceptions of their working environment and organisational performance in order to inform the governments modernisation agenda (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM),

will empirically test the universal thesis by considering the following five research

2004: 5, see also Gould-Williams, 2007). The survey is based on a stratified sample of 3,165 local government workers from 47 authorities in England. The England study was replicated in Malaysia by using the same questionnaire, and methods of distribution, and similar local government service departments. The original LGWS questionnaire was back-translated into Malay by one of the authors and piloted using three Malaysian research students. A few minor adjustments were made to the Malay translation of the questionnaire to ensure uniformity of expression between the England and Malaysian work groups (c.f. Chan et al., 2006; Alder, 1983). The questionnaires were distributed to the Malaysian sample of local government workers in the summer, 2004. A description of the samples In order to achieve comparability between the Malaysian and England local government authorities, the England sample was based on responses obtained from Unitary and County Councils, thus reducing the number of responses to 569. The sampling frame for the current research is based on workers from 45 service departments in England and 20 service departments in Malaysia local government organisations. The service departments were Waste Management, Benefits and Revenue, Leisure Services, Housing Management and Planning. The sampling unit consists of front-line workers, supervisors and middle managers working in England and Malaysia local government organisations. Thus, the sample for the current research is 569 and 453 front-line workers, supervisors and middle managers from England and Malaysia local government service departments, respectively. Just over half the respondents in England and Malaysia were female (57.7 per cent and 56.5 per cent respectively). The largest age group for England consisted of those aged 31-45 years (46.6 per cent), followed by the age group 46-60 years (37.8 per cent) and 21-30 years (12.4 per cent). However, the largest age group for Malaysia consisted of respondents aged 21-30 years (62.7 per cent), followed by the age group 31-45 years (25.2 per cent). 10.6 per cent of the respondents were aged between 46-60 years. Thus, the England sample consisted of a larger proportion of older workers. 91.3 per cent of respondents in the England sample were classified as White British and in the Malaysian sample 94.9 per cent were Malay. Measures As the 2003 LGWS questionnaire was designed to inform policy debate rather than address theoretical issues, many of the measures in this study are based on single items. As such, it is possible that the results may underestimate the effects of the relationships between the independent and dependent variables used in this study.
10

Single item measures were used for the following explanatory variables: employee selection, team working, performance appraisal trust and resources (see Tables 1, 2). Similarly, single item measures were also used for the dependent variables job satisfaction, worker motivation, organisational citizenship behaviour and intention to quit (see Table 3). Training and development was assessed by combining two items: (i) In this department, we are provided with the training needed to achieve high standards of work; and (ii) I am provided with sufficient training and development. Three items were used as a measure of communication: (i) We are kept well informed of what is going on in this authority; (ii) Communication within this department is good; and (iii) This department keeps me well informed. As for the measures of rewards and compensation, these were based on two items: (i) I feel rewarded for the amount of effort I put into my job; and (ii) I feel I am paid a fair amount for the work I do. Organisational Climate was measured by using the following seven items: i) Our line manager/supervisor considers the personal welfare of our group; ii) When Im on a difficult assignment I can usually count on getting assistance from my line manager/supervisor; iii) Our line managers/supervisors are quick to blame us when things dont turn out as planned; iv) My work mates/colleagues resist change; v) I am treated fairly by this department; vi) Theres a friendly, supportive atmosphere amongst staff in this department; and vii) The morale in this department is very low. Two measures were used to assess worker involvement: (i) Our line manager/supervisor consults us before making decisions; and (ii) Our line manager/supervisor asks us for suggestions when faced with service-related problems. Two items were used as a measure of work pressure (i.e. I am under too much in my job; My job involves too much work to do everything well). A three item measure was used for the dependent variable work-related stress: (i) My workload negatively affects the quality of my life (e.g. family or social activities); (ii) Some days I feel I cant continue in this job due to work pressures; and (iii) In my job, I am often confronted with problems I cant do much about. A summary of the Cronbachs alpha coefficients are presented in Table 4. Workers were required to indicate the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with each of the questionnaire statements using a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree).
11

Results Tables 1-3 provide the means, standard deviations and t-test values of the differences between England and Malaysia of the independent and dependent variables. The results show that Malaysian respondents consistently perceived the level of HR activity to be higher than their England counterparts. For instance, seven of the ten HR items were statistically higher for the Malaysian sample (t values ranged from -9.92, p .000 to -3.45, p .001). The one exception was England respondents mean value for a rigorous selection process which was significantly higher than the Malaysian respondents (t value, 2.94, p .003). These findings imply that at least from the workers perspectives, the level of HR activities in Malaysian local government is higher than that experienced in England. A less consistent pattern emerges when comparisons are made between measures of Climate, staff involvement and trust (Table 2) For instance, respondents in England were more likely to receive assistance from their line manager when undertaking a difficult assignment (t value, 3.35, p .001), were more likely to feel they were treated fairly by their respective departments (t value, 3.10, p .002), and enjoy a supportive, friendly atmosphere amongst staff in their departments (t value, 4.23, p .000). However, England respondents also experienced more pressure (t value, 4.61, p .000), were more likely to work in under-staffed departments (t value, 9.53, p .000), where staff morale was perceived to be low (t value, 4.20, p .000). The mean values also suggest that Malaysian respondents perceived that managers were quick to blame them when things didnt turn out as planned (t value, -8.42, p .000), and their work mates were more likely to resist change when compared with the England sample (t value, -3.31, p .001). However, the mean value for trust between managers and staff was higher for Malaysian workers (t value, -4.85, p .000). A comparison of the mean values for the employee outcome measures, as noted in Table 3, suggest that Malaysian workers are consistently more motivated (t value, -16.25, p .000), satisfied with their jobs (t value, -13.29, p .000), and more likely to display organisational citizenship behaviours (t value, -4.48, p .000). The England respondents were more likely to want to quit their jobs in comparison with the Malaysian sample (t value, 9.76, p .000). The findings relating to measures of stress were less consistent, in that Malaysian workers experienced greater work pressures (t value, -2.64, p .008), whereas the England respondents reported being confronted with problems they couldnt resolve (t value, 7.15, p .000). The results of the OLS regression analyses are highlighted in Tables 5-8. The analyses show that the predictive variables explained a relatively high proportion of change in the dependent variables for all five equations, with the highest R2 achieved for Equation 4: dependent
12

variable Stress England sample, with 60 per cent change in the dependent variable being explained by the independent variables. Even though the Malaysian sample had a lower R2, the independent variables nevertheless explained 35 per cent change in stress. The independent variables explained a higher percentage of change in Job Satisfaction for the England sample (Equation 2, R2 .38), whereas the same variables explained 26 per cent of change for the Malaysian sample. Similar R2 were observed for both samples for the remaining three equations (Dependent variables Motivation, Organisational Citizenship Behaviour and Intention to Quit). On this basis it can be argued that the regression equations provide an adequate explanation of variation for each of the dependent variables. With regards to our five research hypotheses, the analyses reveal consistent results in support of all five hypotheses. For instance, bundles of HR practice had similar, statistically significant explanatory effects for both the England and Malaysian samples while controlling for the effects of organisational climate, worker involvement, trust between management and employees and availability of resources. The size of the effects ranged from .47, p .000, for the England sample (Equation 2, dependent variable Job Satisfaction) and .40, p .000, for the Malaysian sample (Equation 1, dependent variable Motivation), with the smallest effects noted in Equation 4 dependent variable Stress (Malaysia sample, -.14, p .000; England sample -.16, p .000). Thus it would appear that the findings reported here provide convincing evidence in support of the universal thesis, with similar predictive effects being noted for both the England and Malaysian samples. However, the remaining explanatory variables did not have such consistent effects across samples. For instance, our Climate measure had significant predictive effects on worker Motivation, Job Satisfaction and OCB for the Malaysian sample ( .16, p .003, .19, p . 000, and .12, p .000 respectively) but had no explanatory effects for the England sample. In contrast, Trust in management predicted worker Motivation ( .14, p .003),and OCB ( . 11, p .031) for the England sample, but had no explanatory effects for the Malaysian sample. Work-related Pressure had significant, inverse effects on worker Motivation ( -.16, p .002) and Job Satisfaction ( -.16, p .001) for the England sample, but not the Malaysian sample. Similar findings were achieved by the two samples for the effects of Work-related Pressure on the dependent variables Stress (England sample: .71, p .000; Malaysian sample: .49, p .000), and Intention to Quit (England sample: .17, p .001; Malaysian sample: .25, p . 000).

13

Tables 7 and 8 show the effects of the disaggregated bundle of HR practices on each of the dependent variables. Disaggregating the HR bundle in this way reveals whether there is consistency across the two samples between each of the individual HR practices and the dependent variables. For instance, the explanatory effect of the HR bundle may, for instance, be due to one or more HR practices being powerful predictors. following patterns. The analyses reveal the First, Teamworking (England sample: .11, p .02; Malaysian sample:

.34, p .000) and Communication (England sample: .14, p .01; Malaysian sample: .
17, p .005) had consistent and statistically significant effects on worker Motivation across both samples. Training (England sample: .28, p .000; Malaysian sample: .14, p .046) and Rewards (England sample: .22, p .000; Malaysian sample: .17, p .003) had consistent effects on Job Satisfaction. Rewards (England sample: .10, p .053; Malaysian sample: .44, p .000) significantly predicted OCB for both samples. Whereas Teamworking (England sample: -.09, p .011; Malaysian sample: -.12, p .024), and Work-Related Pressure (England sample: .71, p .000; Malaysian sample: .48, p .000) predicted Stress for both samples. Finally, Intention to Quit was consistently predicted by Rewards (England sample: -.14, p .006; Malaysian sample: -.17, p .002) and Workrelated Pressure (England sample: .16, p .003; Malaysian sample: .23, p .000). It should be further noted that even though the effects of each of these variables are in the same direction, in several instances the size of the explanatory effects are different. on OCB for the Malaysian sample in comparison with the England sample. For instance, the independent variables Rewards, had a four-fold more powerful predicted effect Similarly, a three-fold difference was noted for the effects of Teamworking on worker Motivation for the Malaysian sample. Training had a two-fold more powerful effect on Job Satisfaction for the England sample compared to the Malaysian sample, and similarly, Work-Related Pressure on Stress had a one and a half-fold difference for the England sample compared to the Malaysian sample.

Discussion and Conclusions The purpose of this research was to present evidence based on a matched comparative study of local government workers in England and Malaysia, of the effects of so called best practice HRM. The literature review highlighted the importance for researchers to use Doing so employee perceptions of HR practice rather than rely on HR policy directives.

captures management practice rather than organisational rhetoric. The research presented here is based on such views. Also, this research presents evidence of the effects of HR

14

practice on employee outcomes and included potential negative effects of HR practice (Ramsay et al., 2000). As such, it makes a valuable contribution to our understanding of the ways in which HR practice effects black box issues, namely employee attitudes and behaviours. Most notably, of course, comparing the findings of our analyses on two different national samples, provides further insight into the effects of HR practice on employees outcomes. Our results of our study suggest that best practice HR is more likely to be evident in Malaysian local government organisations than England. However, for these findings to be more convincing, it will be necessary for perceptions of both samples to be audited this was beyond the scope of this research project. Nevertheless, these results are consistent with Chew (2005) who argued that there is evidence of growing convergence between Malaysian and Anglo-Saxon HR practice, with the levels of HR activity being even more pronounced in Malaysian local government service departments when compared with England. observable patterns emerged from our analysis. Fundamentally, our research supports the universal thesis, in that the effects of the HR bundle were consistent across both samples, and in the hypothesised directions. between the two countries respondents. The size of the effects did vary between the two samples, thus the impact of HR practice is likely to vary Further comparative studies of this nature are The effects of the needed in order to determine the implications of these differences. However, this cannot be stated with regards the remaining explanatory variables, in which no

remaining explanatory variables (organisational climate, staff involvement, trust, and the availability of resources, cannot be regarded as universal. Thus, while they may be important explanatory variables in explaining employee outcomes, their effects are contingent on national context. Within the HR bundle, several practices were found to have consistent effects across national context. These included: teamworking which was found to be a powerful predictor of worker motivation and stress (inverse) in both samples. Similarly, rewards consistently predicted job satisfaction, organisational citizenship behaviours, and quit intentions for both samples. Also, work-related pressure predicted stress and quit intentions for both the Malaysian and England samples. samples. The above findings should be read with the following limitations in mind. This study is based on samples drawn from two different cultures. Culture was measured at the national level,
15

Training and development consistently predicted job satisfaction in both

thus our study provides only a limited test of the effects of national culture on HR practice. It is possible that future studies may wish to include more countries in their analysis, perhaps including three or four different national contexts (e.g. Asian, Anglo-Saxon, Australasian, European). Also, it is assumed that each of the respondents in this study shared the national cultural values, as culture was not measured at the individual level. similar, individual measure of culture. Second, our approach for this study could be criticised for having an ethnocentric bias (Clark et al., 2000: 15). We have adopted an Anglo-Saxon perspective of HRM and imposed it on an non-Anglo Saxon sample (Malaysian workers). As such, we have assumed, as Clark et al., (2000) point out, that the instruments and measures developed in one culture are believed to be equally appropriate and applicable in other nations (pp15). In so doing, we have failed to capture many of the societal and cultural differences between the Malaysian and England sample. Instead, we have focused on management and employee response to HR practices between the two counties rather than using differences in cultural values to explain these differences. Nevertheless, this research provides convincing evidence of the universal effects of best practice HRM in a non Anglo-Saxon country. References Arthur, J.B. (1994) Effects of Human Resource Systems on Manufacturing Performance and Turnover. Academy of Management Journal 37(3), 670-687. Boselie, P., Dietz, G. and Boon, C. (2005) Commonalities and contradictions in HRM and performance research. International Journal of Human Resource Management 15(3), 67-94. Bowen, D.E. and Ostroff, C. (2004) Understanding HRM-firm performance linkages: The role of the 'strength' of the HRM system. Academy of Management Review 29(2), 203-221. Boxall, P. and Purcell, J. (2003) Strategy and human resource management. New York.: Palgrave Macmillan. Budhwar, P. and Debrah, Y. (2001) Rethinking comparative and cross-national human resource management research. International Journal of Human Resource Management 12(3), 497-515. Burton, R.M., Lauridsen, J. and Obel, B. (2004) The impact of organizational climate and strategic fit on firm performance. Human Resource Management 43, 1, 67-82. Delery, J.E. and Doty, D.H. (1996) Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource management: Tests of universalistic, contingency and configurational performance predictions. Academy of Management Journal 39(4), 802-835. Delery, J., Gupta, N., Jenkins, G.D. and Walker, B.C. (1998) Interdimensional correlations in individual and dyadic performance ratings. Journal of Organisational Behavior 19, 6, 577-588. The study did include individual measures of organisational climate, it would also have been useful to have a

16

Denison, D.R. (1996) What is the difference between organizational culture and organizational climate? A native's point of view on a decade of paradigm wars. Academy of Management Review 21(3), 619-654. Faulkner, D., Pitkethly, R. and Child, J. (2002) International mergers and acquisitions in the UK 1985-1994: A comparison of national HRM practices. International Journal of Human Resource Management 13(1), 106-122. Galang, M. (2004) The transferability question: comparing HRM practices in the Philippines with the US and Canada. International Journal of Human Resource Management 15(7), 12071233. Godard, J. (2001) High performance and the transformation of work? The implications of alternative work practices for the experience and outcomes of work. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 54(4), 776-805. Gordon, G.G. and DiTomaso, N. (1992) Predicting corporate performance from organizational culture. Journal of Management Studies 29(6), 783-798. Gould-Williams, J.S. (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(2), 1-27. Gould-Williams, J.S. (2007) HR practices, organisational climate and employee outcomes: evaluating social exchange relationships in local government. International Journal of Human Resource Management 18 (9) . Grant, D. and Shields, J. (2002) In search of the subject: Researching employee reactions to Human Resource management. The Journal of Industrial Relations 44(3), 313-334. Guest, D. (1997) Human Resource Management and Performance: A Review and Research Agenda. International Journal of Human Resource Management 8(3), 263-276. Guest, D.E. (1999) Human resource management - the workers' verdict. Human Resource Management Journal 9(3), 5-25. Guest, D. (2002) Human resource management, corporate performance and employee wellbeing: building the worer into HRM. The Journal of Industrial Relations 44(3), 335-358. Guest, D.E., Michie, J., Sheehan, M. and Conway, N. (2000) Employment relations, HRM and business performance: An analysis of the 1998 workplace employee relations survey Issues in People Management, IPD, London Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L. and 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), 268-279. Hoque, K. (1999) Human resource management in the hotel industry: A comparative analysis. Human Resource Management Journal 37(3), 419-443. Huselid, M.A. (1995) The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on Turnover, Productivity and Corporate Financial Performance. Academy of Management Journal 38(3), 635-672.

17

Ichniowski, C. and Shaw, K. (1999) The effects of human resource management systems on economic performance: An international comparison of US and Japanese Plants. Management Science 45(5), 704-721. Judge, T.A., Thorsesn, C.J., Bono, J.E. and Patton, G.K. (2001) The job satisfaction-Job Performance Relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin 127(3), 376-407. Kinnie, N., Hutchinson, S., Purcell, J., Rayton, B. and Swart, J. (2005) Satisfaction with HR practices and commitment to the organisatio: why one size does not fit all. Human Resource Management Journal 15(4), 9-29. Legge, K. (2005) Human Resource Management Rhetorics and Realities. London: Palgrave. Lepak, D.P. and Snell, S.A. (1999) The human resource architecture: toward a theory of human capital allocation and development. Academy of Management Review 24(1), 31-48. MacDuffie, J.P. (1995) Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance: organisational logic and flexible production systems in the world auto industry. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 48(2), 197-221. Macky, K. and Boxall, P. (2007) The relationship between 'high-performance work practices' and employee attitudes: an investigation of additive and interaction effects. International Journal of Human Resource Management 18(4), 537-567. McMurray, A.J. (2003) The relationship between organizational climate and organizational culture. Journal of American Academy of Business 3(1/2), 1-8. Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D.J., Herscovitch, L. and Topolnytsky, L. (2002) Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: a meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behaviour 61, 20-52. Moran, E.T. and Volkwein, J.F. (1992) The cultural approach to the formation of organisational climate. Human Relations 45(1), 19-46. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2004) The 2003 Local Government Wrokplace Survey HMSO: London Park, H.J., Mitsuhashi, H., Fey, C.F. and Bjorkman, I. (2003) The effects of human resource management practices on Japanese MNC subsidiary performance: a partial mediating model. International Journal of Human Resource Management 14(8), 1391-1406. Patterson, M.G., West, M.A., Lawthom, R. and Nickell, S. (1997) Impact of people management practices on business performance. Issues in People Management 22, 1-28. Patterson, M., Warr, P. and West, M. (2004) Organizational climate and company productivity: The role of employee affect and employee level. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 77, 2, 193-216. Payne, R.L. and Mansfield, R. (1973) Relationships of perceptions of organizational climate to organizational structure, context, and hierarchical position. Administrative Science Quarterly 18, 515-526. Peters, T.J. and Waterman, R.H., Jr. (1982) In Search of Excellence, Lessons from America's Best Run Companies. New York: Harper and Row.
18

Pfeffer, J. (1994) Competitive Advantage Through People. Unleashing the Power of the Work Force. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Pfeffer, J. (1998) The human equation: building profits by putting people first. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Poole, M.S. (1985) Communication and organisational climates: Review, critique and a new perspective. In Orgniasational communication: Traditional themesand new directions, ed. McPhee, R.D. and Tomkins, P.A. Beverly Hills: Sage. Ramsay, H., Scholarios, D. and Harley, B. (2000) Employee and high-performance work systems: testing inside the black box. British Journal of Industrial Relations 38(4), 501-531. Rogg, K.L., Schmidt, D.B., Shull, C. and Schmitt, N. (2001) Human resrouce practices, organisational climate and customer satisfaction. Journal of Management 27, 431-449. Spector, P.E. (1997) Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Tagiuri, R. and Litwin, G.H. (1968) Organizational culture: A key to financial performance. In Organizational climate and culture, ed. Schneider, b. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Truss, C. (2001) Complexities and controversies in linking HRM with organizational outcomes. Journal of Management Studies 38(8), 1121-1149. Turnipseed, D. (1988) An integrated, interactive model of organisational climate, culture and effectiveness. Leadership and Organisation 9(5), 17-21. Van den Berg, R.J., Richardson, H.A. and Eastman, L.J. (1999) The impact of high involvement work processes on organizational effectiveness. Group and Organization Management 24(3), 300-339. Wang, X., Bruning, N. and Peng, S. (2007) Western high-performance HR practices in China: a comparison among public-owned, private and foreign-invested enterprises. International Journal of Human Resource Management 18(4), 684-701. Weber, Y. (1996) Corporate culture fit and perofrmnace in mergers and acquisitions. Human Relations 49(9), 1181-1202. West, M.A., Borill, C., Dawson, J., Scully, J., Carter, M., Snelay, S., Patterson, M. and Waring, J. (2002) The link between the management of employees and patient mortality in acute hospitals. International Journal of Human Resource Management 13(8), 1299-1310. Whitener, E.M. (2001) Do 'high commitment' human resource practices affect employee commitment? A cross-level analysis using hierarchical linear modeling. Journal of Management 27(5), 515-535. Wright, P.M. and Boswell, W.R. (2002) Desegregating HRM: a review and synthesis of micro and macro human resource management research. Journal of Management 28(3), 247-276. Wright, P. and Nishii, L. (2004) Strategic HRM and organizational behaviour: integrating multiple level analysis Paper presented at the What Next for HRM? Conference, Rotterdam, June

19

Youndt, M.A., Snell, S.A., Dean, J.W.J. and Lepak, D.P. (1996) Human resource management, manufacturing strategy, and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal 39(4), 836866.

20

Table 1: Means, standard deviations and t-test of differences in HRM practices between England and Malaysia local government
Item(s) HRM practices: Selection A rigorous selection process is used to select new recruits/workers.[C3] In this department, we are provided with the training needed to achieve high standards of work. [B7] I am provided with sufficient training and development. [C4] Team working Performance appraisal Team working is strongly encouraged in our department. [C10] Staff are given meaningful feedback regarding their individual performance, at least once each a year. [C12] I feel fairly rewarded for the amount of effort I put into my job. [C2] I feel I am paid a fair amount for the work I do. [D5] We are kept well informed of what is going on in this authority. [A16] Communication Communication within this department is good. [C8] This department keeps me well informed. [C13] Eng Mal Eng Mal Eng Mal Eng Mal Eng Mal Eng Mal Eng Mal Eng Mal Eng Mal Eng Mal 563 452 560 453 565 452 561 452 566 452 567 452 567 452 565 453 566 452 566 452 4.67 4.36 4.39 4.51 4.49 4.33 4.90 5.55 4.64 5.07 3.61 4.54 3.85 4.92 4.04 4.82 4.27 4.72 4.40 4.75 1.70 1.65 1.84 1.52 1.80 1.57 1.71 1.39 2.04 1.58 1.90 1.53 1.92 1.53 1.75 1.51 1.71 1.53 1.71 1.54 2.943 -1.099 1.575 -6.683 -3.791 -8.641 -9.921 -7.555 -4.445 -3.446 .003 .272 .116 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 No. of cases Mean SD t value 2-tail sig.

Training

Rewards

* statistically significant at .05 level; ** statistically significant at .01 level; *** statistically significant at .001 level

21

Table 2: Means, standard deviations and t-test of differences in Organisational Climate, Involvement, Trust and Resources between England and Malaysia local government
Item(s) Our line manager/supervisor considers the personal welfare of our group. [A5] When I am on a difficult assignment, I can usually count on getting assistance from my line manager/supervisor. [A6] Our line managers/supervisors are quick to blame us when things dont turn out as planned. (Reversed score) [A14] My work mates/colleagues resist change. (Reversed score) [B6] I am treated fairly by this department. [C5] Theres a friendly, supportive atmosphere amongst staff in this department. [C6] The morale in this department is very low. (Reversed score) [C7] Our line manager/supervisor consults us before making decisions. [A3] Our line manager/supervisor asks us for suggestions when faced with service-related problems. [A4] Line managers/supervisors and stuff trust each other. [A11] Eng Mal Eng Mal Eng Mal Eng Mal Eng Mal Eng Mal Eng Mal Eng Mal Eng Mal Eng Mal Eng Mal Eng Mal Eng Mal No. of cases 565 453 566 453 566 453 564 453 566 452 563 452 565 452 568 453 566 453 564 453 569 453 565 452 567 452 Mean 4.87 4.85 5.26 4.93 3.25 4.13 3.43 3.76 4.99 4.68 5.31 4.89 3.93 3.44 4.40 4.61 4.81 4.65 4.01 4.50 5.55 4.54 4.14 3.64 4.58 4.63 SD 1.83 1.45 1.70 1.46 1.68 1.62 1.60 1.54 1.70 1.54 1.56 1.57 1.99 1.74 1.81 1.43 1.72 1.37 1.77 1.46 1.66 1.71 1.76 1.67 1.92 1.53 t value 0.242 3.348 -8.417 -3.310 3.103 4.227 4.200 -2.018 1.714 -4.845 9.530 4.610 -0.433 2-tail sig. .809 .001 .000 .001 .002 .000 .000 .044 .087 .000 .000 .000 .665

Organisational Climate

Involvement Trust Resources: Understaffed

This service is understaffed. [B2] I am under too much pressure in my job. [D11]

Work pressure My job involves too much work to do everything well. [D12]

* statistically significant at .05 level; ** statistically significant at .01 level; *** statistically significant at .001 level

22

Table 3: Means, standard deviations and t-test of differences in Worker Outcomes and Perceived Organisational Performance between England and Malaysia local government
Item(s) Motivation I look forward to coming to work. [D8] Overall, Im very satisfied with my job and couldnt be more satisfied. [D2] Im prepared to do extra work for no additional pay, just to help others. [D3] My workload negatively affects the quality of my life (e.g. family or social activities). [D10] Stress Some days I feel I cannot continue in this job due to work pressures. [D13] In my job, I am often confronted with problems I cannot do much about. [D14] Intention to quit I would like to leave my job. [D7] Eng Mal Job satisfaction Organisational citizenship behaviour Eng Mal Eng Mal Eng Mal Eng Mal Eng Mal Eng Mal No. of cases 568 452 567 452 565 452 566 452 568 452 568 452 567 452 Mean 4.22 5.81 4.10 5.37 4.27 4.78 3.71 3.57 3.42 3.73 4.29 3.52 3.23 2.12 SD 1.78 1.33 1.75 1.30 2.01 1.63 2.00 1.85 2.00 1.74 1.87 1.55 2.02 1.64 9.759 .000 t value -16.245 -13.292 -4.479 1.157 -2.644 7.145 2-tail sig. .000 .000 .000 .247 .008 .000

* statistically significant at .05 level; ** statistically significant at .01 level; *** statistically significant at .001 level

23

Table 4: Cronbach alpha scores for multiple item measures

Item (s) Independent variables: Best practice HRM: Training Rewards Communication Climate Cronbachs alpha Eng In this department, we are provided with the training needed to achieve high standards of work. I am provided with sufficient training and development. I feel fairly rewarded for the amount of effort I put into my job. I feel I am paid a fair amount for the work I do. We are kept well informed of what is going on in this authority. Communication within this department is good. This department keeps me well informed. Our line manager/supervisor considers the personal welfare of our group. When I am on a difficult assignment, I can usually count on getting assistance from my line manager/supervisor. Our line managers/supervisors are quick to blame us when things dont turn out as planned. (Reversed score) My work mates/colleagues resist change. (Reserved score) I am treated fairly by this department. Theres a friendly, supportive atmosphere amongst staff in this department. The morale in this department is very low. (Reserved score) Our line manager/supervisor consults us before making decisions. Our line manager/supervisor asks us for suggestions when faced with service-related problems. I am under too much pressure in my job. My job involves too much work to do everything well. My workload negatively affects the quality of my life (e.g. family or social activities). Some days I feel I cannot continue in this job due to work pressures. In my job, I am often confronted with problems I cannot do much about. This department provides excellent service when compared to similar services in other authorities. This department has a good reputation. =.88 =.71 =.81 =.80 Mal =.73 =.51 =.70 =.76

Involvement Work pressure

=.86 =.80

=.78 =.59

Stress

=.76

=.68

Perceived organisational performance

=.85

=.89

24

Table 5 Regression analyses of the affects of HRM Practices on Worker Outcomes: England sample
Equation 1 Independent variables Motivation
Standard VIF

Equation 2 Job satisfaction

Standard VIF

Worker Outcomes Equation 3 Organisational Citizenship Behaviour

Standard VIF

Equation 4 Stress
Standard VIF

Equation 5 Intention to quit

Standard VIF

HRM Practices Climate Involvement Trust Resources Understaffed Work pressure Personal characteristics Age Salary Gender Contract Job position Benefits service dept. Planning service dept. Housing service dept. Waste service dept. R Adjusted R F value (Sig. level) N

.31 (.000) -.04 (.395) .081(.122) .14 (.003) .04 (.440) -.16 (.002) .01 (.883) .04 (.395) .00 (.952) -.13 (.001) -.07 (.150) -.20 (.001) -.12 (.054) -.19 (.002) -.11 (.071) .29 .27 12.28 (.000) 460

1.70 1.43 1.72 1.45 1.37 1.59 1.12 1.64 1.16 1.08 1.43 2.18 2.33 2.12 2.35

.47 (.000) .05 (.246) .04 (.395) .08 (.095) .03 (.497) -.16 (.001) .07 (.064) -.04 (.374) -.08 (.045) -.02 (.679) -.05 (.258) -.04 (.462) .02 (.686) -.00 (.937) .07 (.209) .38 .36 17.91 (.000) 459

1.70 1.43 1.72 1.45 1.37 1.59 1.12 1.64 1.16 1.08 1.43 2.18 2.33 2.12 2.35

.21 (.000) -.03 (.587) .16 (.003) .11 (.031) .05 (.312) -.05 (.313) -.02 (.612) -.01 (.883) .01 (.844) -.12 (.008) .12 (.017) -.01 (.845) -.05 (.456) .04 (.535) .04 (.555) .21 .18 7.61 (.000) 459

1.70 1.43 1.72 1.45 1.37 1.59 1.12 1.64 1.16 1.08 1.43 2.18 2.33 2.12 2.35

-.16 (.000) -.02 (.652) -.04 (.376) -.01 (.866) -.06 (.089) .71 (.000) .04 (.197) -.02 (.566) -.00 (.998) .04 (.156) .07 (.057) -.03 (.473) -.03 (.590) .02 (.708) .06 (.216) .60 .59 44.26 (.000) 460

1.70 1.43 1.72 1.45 1.37 1.59 1.12 1.64 1.16 1.08 1.43 2.18 2.33 2.12 2.35

-.35 (.000) .04 (.471) -.10 (.050) -.08 (.117) -.06 (.245) .17 (.001) -.01 (.910) .09 (.081) .02 (.629) .11 (.013) .03 (.570) .11 (.078) .06 (.338) .05 (.421) .03 (.661) .28 .25 11.34 (.000) 460

1.70 1.43 1.72 1.45 1.37 1.59 1.12 1.64 1.16 1.08 1.43 2.18 2.33 2.12 2.35

25

Table 6

Regression analyses of the affects of HRM Practices on Worker Outcomes: Malaysia sample
Equation 1 Equation 2 Job satisfaction
Standard VIF

Independent variables

Motivation
Standard VIF

Worker Outcomes Equation 3 Organisational Citizenship Behaviour

Standard VIF

Equation 4 Stress
Standard VIF

Equation 5 Intention to quit

Standard VIF

HRM Practices Climate Involvement Trust Resources Understaffed Work pressure Personal characteristics Age Salary Gender Contract Job position Benefits service dept. Planning service dept. Housing service dept. Waste service dept. R Adjusted R F value (Sig. level) N

.40 (.000) .16 (.003) -.01 (.826) -.03 (.608) .04 (.453) -.07 (.119) -.06 (.258) .04 (.503) -.04 (.396) .17 (.001) -.04 (.388) .24 (.001) .15 (.027) .16 (.003) -.15 (.024) .30 .27 10.95 (.000) 408

1.60 1.46 1.51 1.63 1.18 1.14 1.47 1.94 1.07 1.32 1.38 2.61 2.51 1.68 2.34

.36 (.000) .19 (.000) -.05 (.367) .01 (.825) .06 (.179) -.01 (.896) .08 (.114) -.04 (.544) .04 (.438) .08 (.136) .00 (.974) .08 (.288) .01 (.841) .16 (.006) .12 (.072) .26 .23 8.97 (.000) 408

1.60 1.46 1.51 1.63 1.18 1.14 1.47 1.94 1.07 1.32 1.38 2.61 2.51 1.68 2.34

.29 (.000) .12 (.023) -.02 (.706) .07 (.219) .06 (.188) .09 (.064) .07 (.193) .15 (.017) .10 (.034) .07 (.172) .04 (.424) -.10 (.188) -.07 (.342) -.10 (.076) -.18 (.009) .23 .20 7.68 (.000) 408

1.60 1.46 1.51 1.63 1.18 1.14 1.47 1.94 1.07 1.32 1.38 2.61 2.51 1.68 2.34

-.14 (.006) .00 (.009) .06 (.216) .02 (.770) .06 (.176) .49 (.000) -.00 (.950) -.01 (.840) -.04 (.404) -.04 (.343) -.04 (.390) -.14 (.033) -.03 (.675) -.01 (.803) .02 (.782) .35 .33 14.06 (.000) 408

1.60 1.46 1.51 1.63 1.18 1.14 1.47 1.94 1.07 1.32 1.38 2.61 2.51 1.68 2.34

-.29 (.000) -.09 (.101) .09 (.079) -.01 (.867) .01 (.864) .25 (.000) .07 (.186) .03 (.582) .00 (.994) -.19 (.000) -.04 (.468) -.23 (.001) -.17 (.016) -.19 (.001) -.14 (.039) .26 .23 9.19 (.000) 408

1.60 1.46 1.51 1.63 1.18 1.14 1.47 1.94 1.07 1.32 1.38 2.61 2.51 1.68 2.34

26

Table 7 Regression analyses of the affects of individual HRM Practices on Worker Outcomes: England sample
Equation 1 Independent variables Motivation
Standard VIF

Equation 2 Job satisfaction

Standard VIF

Worker Outcomes Equation 3 Organisational Citizenship Behaviour

Standard VIF

Equation 4 Stress
Standard VIF

Equation 5 Intention to quit

Standard VIF

HRM Practices Selection Training Team working Performance appraisal Rewards Communication Climate Involvement Trust Resources Understaffed Work pressure R Adjusted R F value (Sig. level) N

.03 (.509) .08 (.189) .11 (.022) -.01 (.863) .07 (.173) .14 (.01) -.04 (.392) .07 (.186) .13 (.010) .03 (.539) -.17 (.001) .30 .26 9.11 (.000) 453

1.41 2.02 1.50 1.69 1.52 2.28 1.49 1.77 1.49 1.39 1.67

-.11 (.016) .28 (.000) .15 (.001) -.06 (.245) .22 (.000) .13 (.020) .03 (.528) .05 (.343) .08 (.091) .04 (.318) -.14 (.003) .43 .40 15.93 (.000) 452

1.41 2.02 1.50 1.69 1.52 2.28 1.49 1.77 1.49 1.39 1.67

-.02 (.712) .02 (.695) .06 (.240) .10 (.073) .10 (.053) .04 (.594) -.03 (.547) .15 (.012) .13 (.018) .05 (.319) -.04 (.491) .21 .17 5.62 (.000) 452

1.41 2.02 1.50 1.69 1.52 2.28 1.49 1.77 1.49 1.39 1.67

-.02 (.653) -.04 (.330) -.09 (.011) -.10 (.009) -.02 (.671) .00 (.934) -.00 (.905) -.03 (.502) -.01 (.747) -.04 (.211) .71 (.000) .62 .60 34.64 (.000) 453

1.41 2.02 1.50 1.69 1.52 2.28 1.49 1.77 1.49 1.39 1.67

-.02 (.623) -.20 (.001) -.05 (.321) .02 (.727) -.14 (.006) -.07 (.250) .05 (.307) -.11 (.040) -.08 (.099) -.07 (.175) .16 (.003) .29 .25 8.62 (.000) 453

1.41 2.02 1.50 1.69 1.52 2.28 1.49 1.77 1.49 1.39 1.67

27

Table 8 Regression analyses of the affects of individual HRM Practices on Worker Outcomes: Malaysia sample
Equation 1 Independent variables Motivation
Standard VIF

Equation 2 Job satisfaction

Standard VIF

Worker Outcomes Equation 3 Organisational Citizenship Behaviour

Standard VIF

Equation 4 Stress
Standard VIF

Equation 5 Intention to quit

Standard VIF

HRM Practices Selection Training Team working Performance appraisal Rewards Communication Climate Involvement Trust Resources Understaffed Work pressure R Adjusted R F value (Sig. level) N

.01 (.851) -.07 (.291) .34 (.000) -.09 (.073) .16 (.003) .17 (.005) .15 (.003) .03 (.593) .01 (.907) .04 (.395) -.06 (.200) .37 .34 11.39 (.000) 408

1.55 2.42 1.65 1.49 1.70 2.35 1.52 1.58 1.72 1.22 1.18

.06 (.305) .14 (.046) .07 (.200) .02 (.762) .17 (.003) .05 (.436) .17 (.001) -.04 (.521) .02 (.743) .08 (.117) -.01 (.920) .26 .23 6.93 (.000) 408

1.55 2.42 1.65 1.49 1.70 2.35 1.52 1.58 1.72 1.22 1.18

.11 (.036) -.14 (.031) .02 (.751) -.13 (.013) .44 (.000) .14 (.029) .06 (.229) .01 (.880) .09 (.113) .12 (.011) .08 (.068) .33 .30 9.60 (.000) 408

1.55 2.42 1.65 1.49 1.70 2.35 1.52 1.58 1.72 1.22 1.18

.04 (.483) .00 (.983) -.12 (.024) .07 (.153) -.13 (.017) -.05 (.424) .02 (.678) .03 (.507) .01 (.891) .05 (.302) .48 (.000) .37 .34 11.24 (.000) 408

1.55 2.42 1.65 1.49 1.70 2.35 1.52 1.58 1.72 1.22 1.18

.16 (.003) -.10 (.116) -.11 (.054) -.03 (.508) -.17 (.002) -.11 (.094) -.05 (.316) .06 (.280) -.01 (.921) -.01 (.825) .23 (.000) .30 .26 8.14 (.000) 408

1.55 2.42 1.65 1.49 1.70 2.35 1.52 1.58 1.72 1.22 1.18

28